Sexualized characters that were done right.

[Aaron Sylvester]

what I meant was when guys say that Bayonetta is "empowering" which is fine, perhaps some women would even agree...but again its THEM saying, I would wager bayonetta is FOR the male gaze I don't think they always get it, don't get the difference in how female/male charachters are portrayed...like you kind of demonstrated here

This thread was purely about bringing up sexualized characters who were "done right", and for any female character that is sexualized there will always be a significant % of people who will agree that it was done for male gaze first and the "empowering" part being a low priority (if at all).
But I don't see why catering to male gaze is a negative thing considering it's roughly proportionate to the number of male consumers who enjoy/appreciate that stuff. Markets cater to consumers.

if anything the MAIN thing here is [b/]perspective[/b] I mean youve got guys telling us what we should and should not have a problem with?.....is that not..well problematic?

Like I said earlier this whole topic is so one-sided...it's all centred around female characters in fictional media, so people holding different stances on the same issue are bound to bump into each other and discuss/argue. Isn't that simply one person telling another person why (or why not) they shouldn't have a problem with it? That's usually what debate and discussion boils down to. I don't see it as problematic.

you know why Frozen was such a big deal? because its about Elsa and Anna, about their love..and not "Elsa and Anna and how they relate to a man" oh sure its ptetty simple...but as far as disney movies go its pleasantly subversive

See, I don't consider that as a big deal because I understand the reasons trends/tropes in media and why they exist. So I see Frozen as just another CG movie and judge it like just another CG movie. What I find weird is when people start rating the movie the best thing ever purely because it has emerged triumphantly as the ultimate statement of women not needing men (or something), to which I can only shrug my shoulders and say "umm...if you say so..." and slowly walk away.

want a good example? check out the show Orange is the new black

its got straight girls, white girls, black girls, young girls, old girls, skinny girls, fat girls, femminie girls, butch girls...all of them charachters with flaws, the show is about THEM first and foremost, and not male charachters, its from THEIR perspective

If you consider a show about diverse females such a huge deal, then that's what you are personally wanting in your media.

All of this comes across as a bit narrow-minded, like the Bechdel Test. When I look at a piece of media I don't judge it according to it's proportion of male/female characters or how inclusive it is of race/sexual orientation/etc, but that certainly seems to be the deciding factor for you. Fair enough, I can't really argue against that.

I judge media as a whole, a sum of it's parts.

Inclusivity is definitely the new hot topic but some people are pushing it a bit too far by implying that anything NOT inclusive of a certain race/gender/whatever is a direct message to that race/gender/etc that the creators must hate them. See the whole Nintendo Tomodachi Life fiasco. I don't really know what to say to such people.

 

[AntiChri5]

Without a doubt Isabella from Dragon Age 2. Her sexuality is a core component of her character without it being an all defining, singular character trait.

Inb4: This turns into a gigantic, massive, apocalyptic gender-sexism-feminism-debate-shitstorm.

I have to say Miranda from Mass Effect. Everybody complains how sexist her ass is or whatever, I have to admit I pay zero attention to such debates, but she is just super bad ass (no pun intended). She is smart, strong, skilled, resourcefull and of course crazy hot. She is genetically designed to be the perfect specimin of a human female, and attractiveness is of course part of that.

I gotta disagree with this. She states that her looks are a part of her genetic tailoring and that she uses them to get what she wants, but all she does is state it. Her characterisation is extremely nonsexual. Even when she seeks out casual sexual encounters she is cold, formal and professional, treating potential bedmates like job applicants. Her outfit makes no sense.

Her outfit makes perfect sense in the "she uses her looks to get what she wants" -regard. Just being attractive gives you an advantage in basically every human interaction. So looking good whenever you have to interact with people is a very big bart of using your looks to get what you want.

Except that she never actually does it. If she were shown doing so, or having a character where that would be a consistent and logical extension of one of her traits, that would be fine, but as it is it is clearly a half assed excuse to have ass shots.

Look at Isabella. Her provocative outfit is consistent with her character, so it's fine. She is flirty and promiscuous enough to rival Zevran. But Miranda? As i said, even when she seeks casual sex she does so mired in rigidity and formality. She is cold and practical, and not once in the game does she flirt casually or try to use her body to get what she wants.

 

[Chris Tian]

snip

I totally get your point about Isabella and the difference between the characters, and I agree.

It seems I didn't make myself clear. Being attractive makes people react more positive to you on a very basic and subconsious level. You don't have to do anything else, like flirt or things like that, just being attractive has already a very strong postitive effect.

That is what I mean when I say she uses her attractiveness to her advantage, she dresses attractive to subconsiously influence people.

Just dressing attractive is her using her attractiveness to her advantage.

Edit: I'm just noticing how appropriate your name is for having the opposite point of view to mine.

 

[DementedSheep]

Lets see not going to go in deep on the sexualized thing and to keep the list short I am with my OG of awesome kickass while looking good female characters I am going with Chun Li.

Hell yeah, Chun Li. For the most part, Street Fighter does a fine job with sexualization. Cammy is the exception.

I hate how "my sisters in danger, this is the perfect time to focus of my tits and ass" Miranda always comes up in theses things.

Spoiler: Perfect in every asspect

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said?

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

Let's translate, shall we?

I didn't know my English was that hard to understand

"most [men] understand [objectification] is not worth fussing over/getting worked up about"

What you're really saying here is that people shouldn't ever get angry about objectification - but that only men are smart enough to realise that. Nice. That's really friendly of you.

I should've probably not just said "men", because there are plenty of women who aren't fussed over objectification either and understand the driving reasons behind the stuff. Understanding the reasons and causes is the first step to understanding why it's not worth fussing over.

"misogyny, patriarchy, sexism, etc (all the trendy feminism terms)".

These are all just words that describe things. The only notable thing about them is that you've lumped them in together under the label 'trendy feminism'. You're essentially stating that people who have concerns about misogyny or sexism etc, are only SAYING they have a problem because it's in fashion to do so. You've completely disregarded the possibility that there actually might be a problem and that the people who HAVE noticed it like to talk about it and raise awareness of it.

Oh feminism is definitely the trendy bandwagon right now, there's no denying that. I would lump it all under the broader topic of "inclusivity" because anything regarding LBGT or racism also gets blown through the roof. Of course there are people with genuine concerns as well, but right now it's hard to pinpoint who those people are.

Lets get something straight - there IS a problem with female portrayal in media right now. I haven't disregarded the possibility, I know it's real. HOWEVER I don't call it a "problem" - that implies that it's right or wrong, for me there is no right or wrong in fictional media. There's only profitable and unprofitable. That's the big picture that many don't seem to understand.

"Talk about over-blowing things to batshit crazy proportions!"

Anything can be exaggerated to crazy levels. I don't really think this was. What were they doing? Saying that the movie was a great example of the fact that female characters can have lives and motivations that don't revolve around men? Uh, yeah. It kinda was.

The only truly crazy part is that it's so rare for a movie to be like that. That's why people were so excited about it.

It's rare because consumers made it rare, nothing more. Their purchasing decisions over several decades has shaped media to become the way it is.
I'm glad that Frozen as a movie has been extremely profitable (remember, no right or wrong) - it means movies with similar themes may also become profitable and change will occur. For me that's nothing more than another shift in patterns and trends, something humans are always actively doing over long time peroids. I don't consider it a triumphant victory or anything like that, it's not a big deal to me.

You seem like a smart guy - but you don't seem like a guy that's really thought about the issue. More like a guy who's just reacting to the issue.

I feel I'm one of the very few people on these forums who tries to see far beyond what people conceive as "issues" and understands the causes of why things happen the way they do.

It's like a white person arguing that racism isn't a big deal anymore. Prejudice is never a big deal when you're not the one affected by it. And if you haven't experienced prejudice in your life - it can be very difficult to understand that a group of people who ARE affected by it - practically live in a different world than you do.

It's like we're living in an MMO. Everyone's experience is affected by their character type. An elf goes to hand in a quest, and the quest giver (who is also an elf) gives him his gold, along with a bonus. The next guy that goes to hand in the quest is an Orc. He gets given less gold and is sneered at by the quest giver.

Same quest, two very different experiences of it.

If you then asked the elf about the possibility of racism affecting quest turn-ins - he'd tell you that it wasn't an issue. That anyone who says they're having a problem is just being overly sensitive. Why? Because he just hasn't had that experience.

He might be wrong objectively, but as far as he knows - he's correct.

That's a pretty bad example because racism affects people's physical and real lives. Racism is also a matter of majorities oppressing minorities, the ones in power looking down on the ones without.

While media is definitely an extension of what happens in real life, it is still stuff created purely for people's entertainment. It lets artists create what they want while allowing the industry as a whole to make profit and keep running.

Female portrayal in media is ultimately the result of the LACK of females participating in the production/creation of said media. Videogames are easily one of the biggest examples of this.

Here's your typical game development team:

Here's your typical audience in a game store (PS4 launch queue in Sydney):

Here's your typical movie production team (Gravity):

Like...what the hell do women expect?? And before you accuse me of cherry-picking pictures, please feel free to do a random google search, take a look at 100+ staff/production photos and let me know if you see a particular trend (hint: very few females).

When some say "oh it's still a man's world" (implying it's a problem) they seem to be forgetting that's it's primarily because men have played the dominating role in creating everything as we know today and driving progress in all fields.

Change that and media will change accordingly. Change consumer trends and media will change accordingly.

And things ARE changing, it's just that we need to wait many more years/decades to see it happen.

People think "raising awareness" and labelling it as a "problem" is going to speed up change, but really it's not going to do squat over a global scale. Change in fictional media will happen when it needs to, at the pace that it wants to.

In other words, check your privilege, dude.

My only privilege appears to be the ability to take a step back and look at the broader picture : /

 

[AntiChri5]

snip

I totally get your point about Isabella and the difference between the characters, and I agree.

It seems I didn't make myself clear. Being attractive makes people react more positive to you on a very basic and subconsious level. You don't have to do anything else, like flirt or things like that, just being attractive has already a very strong postitive effect.

That is what I mean when I say she uses her attractiveness to her advantage, she dresses attractive to subconsiously influence people.

Just dressing attractive is her using her attractiveness to her advantage.

If she were a real person, then yeah that outfit would be a sign of her doing so. But, since she is a created character, she wears what the art team wants her to wear, regardless of her characterisation (what she would choose to wear were she capable of doing so).

In game, she is far more likely to beat information out of someone then seduce it out of them. And far more likely to simply hack their computer to get it then beating it out of them. But she goes into battle in an outfit that prioritizes sexiness over safety and practicality. For someone who is never shown using her body or sexuality to get what she wants, it is pretty clear that that is so that they can shove the camera as far up her ass as is humanly possible. Sexualisation inconsistent with characterization is bad.

 

[Chris Tian]

snip

I totally get your point about Isabella and the difference between the characters, and I agree.

It seems I didn't make myself clear. Being attractive makes people react more positive to you on a very basic and subconsious level. You don't have to do anything else, like flirt or things like that, just being attractive has already a very strong postitive effect.

That is what I mean when I say she uses her attractiveness to her advantage, she dresses attractive to subconsiously influence people.

Just dressing attractive is her using her attractiveness to her advantage.

If she were a real person, then yeah that outfit would be a sign of her doing so. But, since she is a created character, she wears what the art team wants her to wear, regardless of her characterisation (what she would choose to wear were she capable of doing so).

In game, she is far more likely to beat information out of someone then seduce it out of them. And far more likely to simply hack their computer to get it then beating it out of them. But she goes into battle in an outfit that prioritizes sexiness over safety and practicality. For someone who is never shown using her body or sexuality to get what she wants, it is pretty clear that that is so that they can shove the camera as far up her ass as is humanly possible. Sexualisation inconsistent with characterization is bad.

You are right of course that her outfit is not fit for battle, but neither is Isabellas and you seem fine with that.
Like I said this is not about seduction, even a straight man would react far more positive to a handsome man than to an ugly one.

We will never know what the designer of her outfit was thinking. You could of course be totally right and it something along the lines of "sex sells", but I like to give them the benefit of the doubt and that they had something like my theory in mind. Maybe not because its more plausable, but because I like Miranda and dont want to be a victim of the "sex sells" marketing.

 

[Zak757]

OP, are you asking for characters who are sexualized yet still great characters despite that, or characters who are sexualized in a way that it adds to their character? If it's the second, well, no. Sexualization is inherently "not done right." Sexualized implies that you are putting sexy/sexual in places where it doesn't belong, like giving a woman armor that covers nothing vital set in a realistic setting in a story that has nothing to do with sexuality. If a character is sexual, like Bayonetta or Aikurou, than you can not actually "sexualize" that character in the first place.

 

[AntiChri5]

snip

I totally get your point about Isabella and the difference between the characters, and I agree.

It seems I didn't make myself clear. Being attractive makes people react more positive to you on a very basic and subconsious level. You don't have to do anything else, like flirt or things like that, just being attractive has already a very strong postitive effect.

That is what I mean when I say she uses her attractiveness to her advantage, she dresses attractive to subconsiously influence people.

Just dressing attractive is her using her attractiveness to her advantage.

If she were a real person, then yeah that outfit would be a sign of her doing so. But, since she is a created character, she wears what the art team wants her to wear, regardless of her characterisation (what she would choose to wear were she capable of doing so).

In game, she is far more likely to beat information out of someone then seduce it out of them. And far more likely to simply hack their computer to get it then beating it out of them. But she goes into battle in an outfit that prioritizes sexiness over safety and practicality. For someone who is never shown using her body or sexuality to get what she wants, it is pretty clear that that is so that they can shove the camera as far up her ass as is humanly possible. Sexualisation inconsistent with characterization is bad.

You are right of course that her outfit is not fit for battle, but neither is Isabellas and you seem fine with that.
Like I said this is not about seduction, even a straight man would react far more positive to a handsome man than to an ugly one.

We will never know what the designer of her outfit was thinking. You could of course be totally right and it something along the lines of "sex sells", but I like to give them the benefit of the doubt and that they had something like my theory in mind. Maybe not because its more plausable, but because I like Miranda and dont want to be a victim of the "sex sells" marketing.

Isabella gets a pass because of the style of game and her character. Isabella is in a fantasy game. When someone comes at you with a sword, you can dodge, block or parry. Miranda is in a sci fi shooter. When someone shoots at you, you take cover and hope for the best. It's easier to stop someone from stabbing you then to stop someone from shooting you. Added to which, Isabella is a pirate. She learned to fight on a ship, where there would have been a shifting deck, a long fall into lots of water, salt water splashing about and a need to climb at short notice. Heavy, metal armour would have been a terrible decision. It would weigh her down, rust, cause her to drown and prevent her from maintaining her balance. So from there it is a choice between light armour and slutty light armour. Given her personality (she wants to fuck almost everything) her armour choice make perfect sense.

Miranda's outfit goes far beyond flattering. I have seen more conservatively dressed prostitutes.

Theres nothing wrong with liking Miranda. One of my closest friends is a rabid Miranda fan, but she absolutely hates her outfit. Many Miranda fans do. And many Miranda fans like her outfit.

This is all just a subjective matter of personal opinion, but....i mean look at the Mass Effect outfits after ME1. After ME1, the design for male and female characters are pretty clear: Males need to look badass, Females need to look sexy. Femshep was mostly able to escape, but in ME3 not even she is immune. Hell, even the fucking ship AI couldn't escape in ME3.

 

[Pr0]

I'm kind of tired of these discussions needing to be made carefully, as if you're walking through a field of land mines, simply because shaming people for enjoying sexuality is apparently okay.

There hasn't been a day in my life that my understanding and expectations of a woman have been set by the fetishist fantasy versions of them that I encounter and enjoy in gaming or erotic art.

The whole argument of "men expect women to look like this and act like this...cause vidya games" is ridiculous. My wife's a lawyer, shes wicked smart, and 98% of the time shes wandering around with her hair up in jammy pants and a t-shirt when shes not in a suit...I don't have any unrealistic expectations of her because I happen to enjoy sexualized female imagery and she doesn't have any problem with understanding that I know the difference between reality and fantasy.

Overall I'd have to say that the best female character that has been represented with a heavy sexuality but done so in a way that was natural and seemed to simply be a foundational pillar of what her overall personality was, is Isabella from Dragon Age 2....which otherwise was a rather horrible game but the story was told well and Isabella was definitely the stand out character of the female cast.

In fact if I had to put Isabella up against say, Miranda, Morrigan, Ashley and even Tris...I think Isabella really struck me as the penultimate "in her prime" female that could kick ass, take names, drink you under the table and look you dead in the eye and say "Whats wrong with having a d**k in my mouth?" with a straight face, and still keep it classy....much like Sophia Vergara recently did on network television.

 

[LetalisK]

Spoiler

snip

I totally get your point about Isabella and the difference between the characters, and I agree.

It seems I didn't make myself clear. Being attractive makes people react more positive to you on a very basic and subconsious level. You don't have to do anything else, like flirt or things like that, just being attractive has already a very strong postitive effect.

That is what I mean when I say she uses her attractiveness to her advantage, she dresses attractive to subconsiously influence people.

Just dressing attractive is her using her attractiveness to her advantage.

If she were a real person, then yeah that outfit would be a sign of her doing so. But, since she is a created character, she wears what the art team wants her to wear, regardless of her characterisation (what she would choose to wear were she capable of doing so).

In game, she is far more likely to beat information out of someone then seduce it out of them. And far more likely to simply hack their computer to get it then beating it out of them. But she goes into battle in an outfit that prioritizes sexiness over safety and practicality. For someone who is never shown using her body or sexuality to get what she wants, it is pretty clear that that is so that they can shove the camera as far up her ass as is humanly possible. Sexualisation inconsistent with characterization is bad.

You are right of course that her outfit is not fit for battle, but neither is Isabellas and you seem fine with that.
Like I said this is not about seduction, even a straight man would react far more positive to a handsome man than to an ugly one.

We will never know what the designer of her outfit was thinking. You could of course be totally right and it something along the lines of "sex sells", but I like to give them the benefit of the doubt and that they had something like my theory in mind. Maybe not because its more plausable, but because I like Miranda and dont want to be a victim of the "sex sells" marketing.

Isabella gets a pass because of the style of game and her character. Isabella is in a fantasy game. When someone comes at you with a sword, you can dodge, block or parry. Miranda is in a sci fi shooter. When someone shoots at you, you take cover and hope for the best. It's easier to stop someone from stabbing you then to stop someone from shooting you. Added to which, Isabella is a pirate. She learned to fight on a ship, where there would have been a shifting deck, a long fall into lots of water, salt water splashing about and a need to climb at short notice. Heavy, metal armour would have been a terrible decision. It would weigh her down, rust, cause her to drown and prevent her from maintaining her balance. So from there it is a choice between light armour and slutty light armour. Given her personality (she wants to fuck almost everything) her armour choice make perfect sense.

Miranda's outfit goes far beyond flattering. I have seen more conservatively dressed prostitutes.

Theres nothing wrong with liking Miranda. One of my closest friends is a rabid Miranda fan, but she absolutely hates her outfit. Many Miranda fans do. And many Miranda fans like her outfit.

Count me among the former. I think Miranda is a great character (Isabella too), and her outfit got across the point of her being attractive and juxtaposing with Jack, but something different, even as little as not giving her a perma wedgie, would have served just as well without providing unnecessary fodder.

 

[vIRL Nightmare]

He-man, Lion-O, Dante, Vaan, Shen Woo, Raiden (Metal Gear), Yun-Seong. I think I've made my point, list could be way longer but one character a series will suffice.

 

[JagermanXcell]

Oh geez. Some people already took my Dante and Bayonetta.

Welp there is one well done sexualized character action character no one mentioned yet.

Jetstream Sam
The coolest and sexiest Brazilian Cyborg Samurai enigma of a character you should have all the pleasure of witnessing.

Spoiler: From top

Spoiler: To (perfect) bottom

He's go it all ladies... and gents.

 

[Voulan]

OP, are you asking for characters who are sexualized yet still great characters despite that, or characters who are sexualized in a way that it adds to their character? If it's the second, well, no. Sexualization is inherently "not done right." Sexualized implies that you are putting sexy/sexual in places where it doesn't belong, like giving a woman armor that covers nothing vital set in a realistic setting in a story that has nothing to do with sexuality. If a character is sexual, like Bayonetta or Aikurou, than you can not actually "sexualize" that character in the first place.

I was just going to say something like this. Most people tend to get upset at sexualised female characters when it's blatantly shoehorned into a setting where it doesn't make any sense or when the character expresses no interest in sex whatsoever. Such examples like the chainmail bikini when other characters are dressed sensibly in a war scenario, or the innocent and cutesy and probably not of legal age JRPG girl are evidence of a situation where sexuality has no place and is borderline inappropriate.

A character that has interest in sex or is very open about their sexuality, like Isabella from DAII, is an example of a sexy character, not a sexualised character. In which case it would be alright, since they are being sexy of their own volition. Wearing more revealing clothing is then an addition to their personality.

So a sexualised character is a character designed to be visually sexy for the sake of sales and titilation in a place where there is no apparent explanation for it in the setting - a sexy character is a character that expresses her interest in sex openly and dresses in such a way to show her sexuality as an aspect of their personality. I hope others see the difference.

 

[Vault101]

This is all just a subjective matter of personal opinion, but....i mean look at the Mass Effect outfits after ME1. After ME1, the design for male and female characters are pretty clear: Males need to look badass, Females need to look sexy. Femshep was mostly able to escape, but in ME3 not even she is immune. Hell, even the fucking ship AI couldn't escape in ME3.

while I kind of agree with you I will say Femshep wasn't really "prettied" up like Ashley was (oh god THAT) to me it was just giving her a "unique" appearance in the same way male shep got a unique appearance...before her default just looked like a bunch of blandness modeled from clay...you can tell particularly in the later games the models they put effort into

[sub/]at least in miranda's case I can suspend disbelief for her hair being out[/sub]

 

[AntiChri5]

This is all just a subjective matter of personal opinion, but....i mean look at the Mass Effect outfits after ME1. After ME1, the design for male and female characters are pretty clear: Males need to look badass, Females need to look sexy. Femshep was mostly able to escape, but in ME3 not even she is immune. Hell, even the fucking ship AI couldn't escape in ME3.

while I kind of agree with you I will say Femshep wasn't really "prettied" up like Ashley was (oh god THAT) to me it was just giving her a "unique" appearance in the same way male shep got a unique appearance...before her default just looked like a bunch of blandness modeled from clay...you can tell particularly in the later games the models they put effort into

[sub/]at least in miranda's case I can suspend disbelief for her hair being out[/sub]

I am more referring to her outfits and body then the new default face. i didn't really have a problem with the face. But her body gradually gets closer to the pinup standard throughout each game, and in ME3 she get's stuck with a stupid latex dress where Mshep gets an awesome leather jacket and jeans combo.

The first time i saw the new Ash i honestly thought it was Miranda.

 

[Vault101]

I am more referring to her outfits and body then the new default face. i didn't really have a problem with the face. But her body gradually gets closer to the pinup standard throughout each game, and in ME3 she get's stuck with a stupid latex dress where Mshep gets an awesome leather jacket and jeans combo.

The first time i saw the new Ash i honestly thought it was Miranda.

oh yeah, the dress thing pissed me off

other than that I never noticed...

 

[teamcharlie]

I like this question and the thought behind it. On the one hand it could turn bad and there are obviously some heated debates it can start/has already started, but showin' some skin=sexism has always seemed way too easy an answer in my book and way too fraught with the specter of (I don't even really like typing this word) 'slut-shaming.'

Sexy ladies:
1) Kinzie Kensington and Shaundi, SRIII and SRIV (moreso in the latter for both of them). Yes, Shaundi's the eye candy and Kinzie talks dirty, but they are solidly designed characters with full personalities, their own wants and desires, their own preferences, and inner strength that doesn't just come from men in their lives.

2) Elizabeth from Bioshock: Infinite. Yeah, I know.

Spoiler

Booker's her dad and all that, gross gross yadda yadda.

She's an attractive lady in that Beauty and the Beast-Belle kinda way, she's smart, she's self-possessed, and she has interests beyond men without her either becoming a lesbian or asexual. Her daddy issues are problematic, but I don't think they make her construction irretrievably sexist.

3) Morrigan from DA:O. Questionable pick, I know. But I think that after you get over her initial appearance of promiscuity, there's more to her than her expansive cleavage. Also, while Morrigan may appear to be the most sexualized as far as her clothing is concerned, I think there's a lot more to her than, say, Leliana who seems pretty much entirely defined by her sexuality.

4) Veronica Renata Santangelo (Fallout: New Vegas). Yes, they go into a whole 'thing' about her being a lesbian. That's a little annoying. But unlike somebody like Cass who seems designed to tittilate at the same time as she denies, Veronica cares about more things than a lost ladyfriend or how much she doesn't want to bone down with a dude. Quests, complicated loyalties, hopes, and dreams.

Not a complete list by any means, but I think this is a good topic to consider so we don't get too doom-and-gloom about the state of sexism and gaming. Some people, even if rather infrequently, have actually done some pretty good work in this arena.

 

[CloudAtlas]

Lets get something straight - there IS a problem with female portrayal in media right now. I haven't disregarded the possibility, I know it's real. HOWEVER I don't call it a "problem" - that implies that it's right or wrong, for me there is no right or wrong in fictional media. There's only profitable and unprofitable. That's the big picture that many don't seem to understand.

You acknowledge "there is a problem", but you "don't call it a problem"? Right...

You seem like a smart guy - but you don't seem like a guy that's really thought about the issue. More like a guy who's just reacting to the issue.

I feel I'm one of the very few people on these forums who tries to see far beyond what people conceive as "issues" and understands the causes of why things happen the way they do.[/quote]

To think that everything is just about profits, that stuff like for example sexism or self-fulfilling expectations ("women don't play video games" -> no video games made for women -> women actually don't play video games) aren't part of the equation at all, that isn't "seeing far beyond" "issues". In fact, it is a rather myopic, shallow view. You're not looking "beyong" things, you're just looking at the surface.

And of course you're contradicting yourself, again, later in this post, where you say that "the female portrayal in media is ultimately the lack of females participating in the production/cration of said media", that is, you say that this portrayal is ultimately NOT driven by profit considerations, as you claimed just a few lines aboves.

Change that and media will change accordingly. Change consumer trends and media will change accordingly.

And things ARE changing, it's just that we need to wait many more years/decades to see it happen.

People think "raising awareness" and labelling it as a "problem" is going to speed up change, but really it's not going to do squat over a global scale. Change in fictional media will happen when it needs to, at the pace that it wants to.

Okay, so people talking about the problem - and vocally demanding change - is speeding up change, by your own admission, but this speeding up 'doesn't do squad on a global scale'? What is it now? Does it make a difference or not? And, more importantly, when will you start making consistent arguments?

And how do you think change comes to be exactly? All on itself? No. In fact, "raising awareness" is a big part of the deal in this case. I wasn't aware of the problems a couple of years ago. I am now. Many male game designers weren't aware. They are now. Many male journalists weren't aware. They are now. Guess how that came to be?

In other words, check your privilege, dude.

My only privilege appears to be the ability to take a step back and look at the broader picture : /[/quote]

Yea... not really. Your "privilege" seems to be making statements that contradict each other while still believing your view to be more well thought out than others.

 

[Princessbabe]

What's your favorite sexualized character? And how does she (Or he) make it work?

Morrigan from Dragon Age.

She spent most of the game in very little clothing.

But damn, she was a badass...

I just want to explain how this works. Morrigan's sexuality is absolutely her own. Unlike most characters in Bioware games, you can not choose how her sexuality expresses, not with any amount of gift giving or painstakingly exact dialogue choices. She doesn't want to sleep with you and that's it. She does choose sex as a means to an end later in the game in that bit of plot weirdness but as a character that choice is still hers. Not groundbreaking but interesting in the scope of Bioware's history, I think.

A lot of this thread seems to be "sexualisation that doesn't matter because they are also developed characters" which doesn't cut it. Sexualisation in this sense, "to give sexual associations" is basically a matter of authorial intent, whether it be through characterisation, play mechanics, or the game's composition and "cinematography" (hello Miranda). We refer to it negatively as sexualisation when those elements are incongruous, and that incongruity comes from an attempt to imbue undue sexual appeal. For example, Miranda is not highly sexual in her motivations, but every time we have a professional chat in her office, whoever directs ME2-3's visuals has placed Shepherd on on side of the screen and her arse on the other for no reason other than sexualisation. It's not a default camera angle, they don't do it when I'm in the med bay chatting to the doctor.

What we're looking for here is videogame characters who possess a sexuality without any of the incongruous artifice that makes you step back and go "really? C'mon guys...". For example Morrigan dresses as she likes, because she is characterized as some-one who absolutely does not care what Ferelden's society thinks, not about magic and not about women.

In that category I'd like to elect Tess from The Last of Us. Tess is a great character and performed in a wonderfully human way. On first glance you may think she is just an archetypal bad-arse, like a traditional male anti-hero plopped into a woman's body. However there are several little moments in the Last of Us where her sexuality is exhibited in a tasteful way. Early on a guy steps into Joel's way and she dismisses him as "an old headache". Later on she suggests that she and Joel should take a sort of vacation together, and her tone suggests it would be a sort of post-apocalyptic romantic getaway. The nature of her relationship with Joel is never exactly clear enough to pigeonhole. Are they business colleagues? Certainly. Are they friends? It seems a rapport has developed, they certainly bicker like an old married couple at times. Are they or have they been lovers? Maybe? Could be? "There's enough here that you have to feel some sort of obligation to me." It is all wonderfully nuanced, and while only tangentially related to the plot it makes both Joel and Tess all the more wonderfully human. They are both hardened survivors, but unlike many one dimensional characters who fit that archetype there is a real depth of emotion underneath that the game lets you glimpse from time to time.

Now that is how it is done.