The rampant Sexualization in videogames

[EternallyBored]

Utterly out of control! I mean, look at the dwarf in Dragon's crown! Dante in DMC? Kratos in god of war!

These musclebound men skew the public opinion of men, vastly oversexualizing us and making more realistically proportioned men feel both inadequate and disgusted, while women in turn expect that all men should be 6 foot tall, muscle bound, scantily clad giants grunting lustily from exertion upon opening doors, lifting heavy objects and defending them from potential rivals.

I for one demand realistic and proper portrayal of men in video games that gives realistic expectations, who's with me!?!

I haven't read all the posts just yet, so if anyone else has pointed this out already I apologize.

Those characters you pointed out? The dwarf, Kratos, Dante? They weren't made to be attractive to women. They were made to be attractive to men, specifically to tune into their desire for a power fantasy.

Fair on the Dorf and Kratos, but I am sorry. The Dante from DMC was not made to be a male power fantasy. The origional Dante, hell yeah, but the new one...Nope.

New Dante is less a male specific power fantasy and more just a power fantasy in general. He's powerful and able to basically give the finger to major facets of society, hence the demons he's fighting being major power players in society (media heads, bankers,leaders, etc.) He's the type of fantasy that usually seems to appeal to the rebellious teenager and anti-establishment type. Now how much of that was explicitly intended I don't know, but he still definitely has elements of a power fantasy in him.

Unless you were joking and just talking about how much new Dante sucks as a character, in which case just ignore me.

 

[Fox12]

Utterly out of control! I mean, look at the dwarf in Dragon's crown! Dante in DMC? Kratos in god of war!

These musclebound men skew the public opinion of men, vastly oversexualizing us and making more realistically proportioned men feel both inadequate and disgusted, while women in turn expect that all men should be 6 foot tall, muscle bound, scantily clad giants grunting lustily from exertion upon opening doors, lifting heavy objects and defending them from potential rivals.

I for one demand realistic and proper portrayal of men in video games that gives realistic expectations, who's with me!?!

Once again, the issue has been confused. There's nothing wrong with attractive people in gaming. When their sexuality robs them of any point, personality, or purpose, then it becomes a problem. There's a difference between a character who happens to be sexually attractive, and a character that is sexually exploited.

 

[TehCookie]

Utterly out of control! I mean, look at the dwarf in Dragon's crown! Dante in DMC? Kratos in god of war!

These musclebound men skew the public opinion of men, vastly oversexualizing us and making more realistically proportioned men feel both inadequate and disgusted, while women in turn expect that all men should be 6 foot tall, muscle bound, scantily clad giants grunting lustily from exertion upon opening doors, lifting heavy objects and defending them from potential rivals.

I for one demand realistic and proper portrayal of men in video games that gives realistic expectations, who's with me!?!

I haven't read all the posts just yet, so if anyone else has pointed this out already I apologize.

Those characters you pointed out? The dwarf, Kratos, Dante? They weren't made to be attractive to women. They were made to be attractive to men, specifically to tune into their desire for a power fantasy.

Fair on the Dorf and Kratos, but I am sorry. The Dante from DMC was not made to be a male power fantasy. The origional Dante, hell yeah, but the new one...Nope.

You comparing some homeless bum to a man made of pure sex? Not to mention DMC4 was made with women in mind and it was obvious, DmC was made to piss off all the fans.

 

[oreso]

Once again, the issue has been confused. There's nothing wrong with attractive people in gaming. When their sexuality robs them of any point, personality, or purpose, then it becomes a problem. There's a difference between a character who happens to be sexually attractive, and a character that is sexually exploited.

As an exercise, do you think that a male character's -utility- (being a tool) sometimes robs them of point, personality or identity?

Link is a young boy who is expected to risk his life for someone he's never met. And he's... nothing else. I don't think that's a healthy message if it is repeated ad infinitum to every boy ever: "Your life is nothing, except what you can do to save others".

I'm not claiming there's direct equivalence, but would you say this is also a problem?

This is following thoughts about men being treated as disposable in the media, and this blog post in particular. [http://themalesofgames.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/men-are-expendable-gender.html]

Cheers.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Good looking or attractive characters are not the same thing as sexualized characters.

Nicely put. Really nicely put.
<spoiler=This is attractive><img src=http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs48/f/2013/084/a/5/cut__chie_satonaka_by_estormwrath-d26hdxp.png><img src=http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_x7TEv9abDCM/Siz3w6wHfLI/AAAAAAAAAS4/QE4DLPbApF0/s400/Lili_13.jpg><img src=http://download.minitokyo.net/Yukiko.Amagi.587090.jpg>
<spoiler=This is oversexualized><img src=http://mobi-wall.brothersoft.com/files/320240/i/12823643811710.jpg><img src=http://static.minitokyo.net/downloads/04/36/466804.jpg>

Is it, though?

I work out, and for the reason I really just don't like clothes, I tend to wear muscle shirts as much as possible. The closest I can get to walking around shirtless. I might be looks, but I wouldn't say women throw themselves at me.

However, in situations where I take control or things depend on me, I tend to shine because I've been doing that shit most of my life. In those situations where women are present, I tend to get more interest and come ons than me just standing around.

Because of how society was made, women before had little value other than sexual. It's a plain fact. Up until 50 years ago, a woman's job was to look pretty and pop out babies so she could attract a male. So a man didn't have to look far into her personality or identity to find her attractive. In fact, too much of that might turn a guy off because she only had those two selling points.

But at the same time, men 50 years ago had to be the protectors, the resource gathers (in terms of getting this to obtain resources, women did the actual shopping), the solvers of problems, the virtual leaders. A man's looks are pleasant, but they are just a fraction of what a man had to be. He had to be smart, a good provider, one who didn't let situations get to him... basically, a sweet caring robot who never tired and was able to handle everything.

Times have changed. We now accept women have much more to offer society as a whole, so this is very much outdated. But not so much for men. InB4 the cavalcade of women saying "That's not what I do". I don't discount that. I completely believe that you reading this have enlightened ideals of Male roles. But we, what, thousand people don't even make up a drop of water in the population at large.

I can only speak from my experience and what society still shows us is 'acceptable' via media. I've seen plenty relationships break up because the man couldn't provide and the idea that 'she could do better' is still in our society. I've heard about plenty of new guys entering my female friends or associate's lives and the first three questions will always house 'So what does he do?'. I've seen that no matter the 'status' a woman has obtained, it is a firm belief that the man has to do better or he's not really the man.

Gentlemen, do you even think about that question when someone tells you he has a new girl?

Probably not. Because when everything changed for women, nothing really changed for guys.

Men are playing keep up with the new and correct role of women being equals with outdated mindsets of what men are still supposed to be. While Kratos might not be completely physically attractive, the ideal is there. Not completely, mind you. Yeah, I get it. He's fucking insane. But a commanding force that doesn't stop until he gets his revenge for his loved ones tends to be appealing to a good number of people.

As others said before, there is difference between male and female titillation. Men are set with physical appearance most of the time, and you'll have those people who are not into blondes and big breasts, but are in to something else. Then you have me who likes appearances, but has trust issues and needs to really know the woman first before real feelings can occur. There are always exceptions.

But a tall, dark, somewhat handsome stranger who can get things done, is nigh unstoppable, and commands everyone to follow his mindset... well, crack open a romance novel and see if I just described your typical video protagonist or the male love interest in any one of those novels.

 

[Generic4me]

Oh boy, fun.

I'm not a major supporter of Feminism, hell I'm firmly against most of what third-wave Feminism is trying to do (Exceptions), but I don't buy the "male disposibility" argument.

Men are not required to support a family, you're just an asshole if you don't.
Men are not drafted to fight in wars against their will. (Yeah, we sign up for the draft, but it'll be a long time before I'll ever worry about it)
Men are not expected to be 6'3 athletic superhumans.
Men are no more disposable to today's society excepting a few small inconveniences which are either so minor to hardly have any effect (Baby gets ignored for a few minutes longer), or so rare "Women and children first!" that it's not affecting 99% of the population in any meaningful way at all, and people complaining about it are just bitching for the sake of bitching.

If men want to try to take away from the Feminist movement, the best argument is to basically say: "Jeesus, toughen up a little.". Crying about the smallest inequalities on one hand than telling Feminists that they can't do the same thing isn't going to solve anything. Whining about everything gets nothing done and just makes us look like a bunch of morons who have no comprehension of the real world, which, surprise, doesn't care that you've been oppressed and would like you to get back to work.

Yes, Nathan Drake is more attractive than me. Instead of bitching about it and saying it's offensive to me and everybody should lower their standards, I should spend that time trying to better myself.

 

[Fox12]

Once again, the issue has been confused. There's nothing wrong with attractive people in gaming. When their sexuality robs them of any point, personality, or purpose, then it becomes a problem. There's a difference between a character who happens to be sexually attractive, and a character that is sexually exploited.

As an exercise, do you think that a male character's -utility- (being a tool) sometimes robs them of point, personality or identity?

Link is a young boy who is expected to risk his life for someone he's never met. And he's... nothing else. I don't think that's a healthy message if it is repeated ad infinitum to every boy ever: "Your life is nothing, except what you can do to save others".

I'm not claiming there's direct equivalence, but would you say this is also a problem?

This is following thoughts about men being treated as disposable in the media, and this blog post in particular. [http://themalesofgames.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/men-are-expendable-gender.html]

Cheers.

Not necessarily, though I suppose it could if the writing is bad enough. In situations where it is insinuated that men have less value because they are men, then yes, you could make that argument, and I would agree with you. This usually isn't the case in games though, because men are typically portrayed as warriors, which is an occupation that inherently insinuates the possibility of danger. Women are often relegated to "the princess in the tower," which would give them civilian status. In that case, it's not that women are worth more than men, but that a soldier is expected to bare the brunt of danger on the civilians behalf, regardless of gender.

As for women warriors, my only issue is if they're sexualized and have no personality, or if they're sexually exploited to the point of absurdity. If the chain mail bikini offers better defense stats then the plate mail, and she's supposed to be a front line soldier, then that's a problem. I personally find it distracting on a practical level, and have to roll my eyes a little bit, or laugh.

In the case of Link, most depictions of him seem to embrace his heroic role, though we don't really see enough of his personality to warrant much debate. He chooses to become a hero. In that case, yes, he is expected to risk his life. Keep in mind that most Zelda games are actually just coming of age stories, especially Ocarina of Time. A young boy grows up in a magical world, but when he grows up it is a much darker and more intimidating place. Through hard work and perseverance things get progressively better, and after he accepts his responsibilities and duties he realizes he has a place in the world after all, and that adulthood isn't so bad. He also sees that you reap the benefits of hard work in the world. I also think most boys fantasized about this adventurous role, or atleast I did when it came out. I think a lot of us wanted to be Link, but I don't think most women would want to be the busty tavern wench depicted in most games. I think the difference is that most games portray men the way they want to be portrayed.

In a situation where a male character doesn't want to risk his life, or has no desire to be some chosen hero, and yet he is forced into the role because his life is seen as having less value, then I would absolutely agree with you. If a man is depicted as being more expendable by sheer virtue of being male, then I would agree with you 100%, and I think you're absolutely right.

 

[Colour Scientist]

sexy puppies

Those two words should never ever be next to one another in a sentence.
Go home and think about what you've done!

 

[Casual Shinji]

sexy puppies

Those two words should never ever be next to one another in a sentence.
Go home and think about what you've done!

Well he's the one showing the dirty picture.

 

[Stephen St.]

Errr what? I'm nor sure if I understand this sentence.
I'll try and respond relevantly.
You don't have to address problems from an ethical standpoint or for ethical reasons.
But if somebody presents themselves as being concerned with a problem for ethical reasons, but is then revealed to be concerned with the problem for only selfish reasons, then it discredits them.


Well that's a broad generalisation.
One might say that women "enjoyed the warmth" of sexual harassment in the workplace for decades, but one would be wrong.
They just didn't have a voice.

So, there is no moral or ethical reason, but it still discredits them? Why?
The point is men had a voice, all the voice, in fact. But they didn't care. I just don't see how every group that wants to adress the problems it's seeing has to adress everyone else's problems too. The civil rights movement isn't "discredited" because it didn't simultaneously fight for gender equality or same sex marriage. Feminist are allowed to only adress feminist problems. You might not like it, but thats no argument.

 

[The_Echo]

It is also worth noting that, despite apparently being "on fire" for years, Men quite seemed to enjoy the warmth until recently.

It's just a retaliation to the more-or-less sudden uprising of people who, for whatever reason are only just now making a fuss about the portrayal of women.

I like to look at it this way, using the fire metaphor: If everyone's on fire, you should be trying to douse everyone, not just the people screaming.

 

[Stephen St.]

It is also worth noting that, despite apparently being "on fire" for years, Men quite seemed to enjoy the warmth until recently.

It's just a retaliation to the more-or-less sudden uprising of people who, for whatever reason are only just now making a fuss about the portrayal of women.

I like to look at it this way, using the fire metaphor: If everyone's on fire, you should be trying to douse everyone, not just the people screaming.

But that implies that the feminists are
a.) The only ones with a water bucket, so to say;
b.) can do the same for everyone at the same time.

Without those two premises, which aren't established, it is in fact the entirely right choice to douse the ones that are screaming.

 

[balladbird]

I absolutely adore how the men who try to shift the focus of female outrage by pointing out how male characters are sexualized too, seem to share the universal and utterly hilarious delusion that Kratos or Marcus Phoenix actually attract a significant number of female fans.

Sorry, boys. If you want to make your point, I'm afraid you're going to have to point out some of those androgynous japanese characters you hate so much, not the testosterone poisoned he-men you wish you were. Sephiroth makes more fangirls in a day than Marcus Phoenix will ever have in his entire existence.

Either way, it's a hollow argument. as Jim so eloquently put it:

We know that mainstream game development is predominantly designed by men FOR men, and knowing that, we have to ask: exactly who is this hypothetical male objectification being done for? Women? No. Because the industry has a practiced history of not giving a fuck about women. Gay men? HAH! We've not even moved past the 'lol u wanna have sex with a man lol gay' stage of video game writing yet (if only). No, in the same way female characters are being designed to appeal to men, so too are male characters ? but not, of course, in the objectifying sense.

Objectification is the reduction of a human being to a thing, an item, a something to possess. This is what's meant when we say women are objectified. [Video games objectify women] by making them the targets of sexual desire while stripping them of their agency in sex. Women are allowed to dress skimpily, they're allowed to be hit on, and they're allowed to be fucked. However, they're not allowed to initiate sexual contact, be playable during a sex scene, or really have any input in a relationship outside of being an objective, a goal, a thing for the male hero to go after.

This is not what happens with male characters. They're presented as tall, muscular, heroic, and brave, and most importantly, they're not supposed to be things we want to own. They're not targets, they're not goals. Their ideals are our goals, but they themselves, as individuals, are not. And that's what men are in the game industry: not objectified, but idealized.

That's the difference in the game industry, and this is where people arguing that we're all equal trip themselves up. Women are objectified; they are supposed to be things men want. Men are idealized; they are heroes men are supposed to want to be.

 

[wulf3n]

I absolutely adore how the men who try to shift the focus of female outrage by pointing out how male characters are sexualized too, seem to share the universal and utterly hilarious delusion that Kratos or Marcus Phoenix actually attract a significant number of female fans.

Sorry, boys. If you want to make your point, I'm afraid you're going to have to point out some of those androgynous japanese characters you hate so much, not the testosterone poisoned he-men you wish you were. Sephiroth makes more fangirls in a day than Marcus Phoenix will ever have in his entire existence.

Those that say that are screwing up the argument.

It's not that men are sexualised as well, it's that the portrayal of men is sexist as well.

Games reinforce the archaic notion that "Heroism" is about Physical strength and violence based on obsolete gender roles.

Now before you say "It's still designed for males", yes, It's for males, just as magazines like Vogue are for women.

[Ok maybe not vogue, but magazines targeted at girls, usually teen, that imply this is how you should look]

That doesn't mean they're any less harmful.

 

[DementedSheep]

Might work better if you had more than 3 examples and those were examples of guys that are actually sexually attractive because the Dwarf and Kratos are not. At least not to most woman, you don't see hoards of sexualised fanart for them. There are ways of looking good that aren't particularly sexualised and that what guys generally get. I like the design for Kratos but I really would not want to fuck him. The only one out of those 3 that I'd class as sexualised is Dante.

Both guys and girls get idealized in games but the typical idealized guy and idealized woman are not equivalent. It's the worlds strongest man vs worlds most beautiful woman thing. Guys are idealized for active things, woman are idealized for useless passive things.

Guys get heroically idealized. emphasizing strength and competency because that's what valued in a guy. They get muscles because that's a sign of strength and given the general backgrounds and situation of course their going to be fit. A lot of the time they don't even look attractive and even when they are they generally still look like they could actually do something.

The typical idealized woman on the other hand it's all about the sex appeal and beauty. Big tits, skinny, stupid weak looking poses, stripperific outfits, high heels and they often they are worrying GF or DiD in narrative. Even when you get woman who are meant to powerful and not really the seductive type their appearance generally doesn't match at all because there sex appeal is still where the emphasis is.

With woman this tend to apply to every female character (not that there are usually many of them), whereas with guys you get variety of different types rather than just typical hero ideal in the side characters.

 

[CloudAtlas]

I absolutely adore how the men who try to shift the focus of female outrage by pointing out how male characters are sexualized too, seem to share the universal and utterly hilarious delusion that Kratos or Marcus Phoenix actually attract a significant number of female fans.

Sorry, boys. If you want to make your point, I'm afraid you're going to have to point out some of those androgynous japanese characters you hate so much, not the testosterone poisoned he-men you wish you were. Sephiroth makes more fangirls in a day than Marcus Phoenix will ever have in his entire existence.

Those that say that are screwing up the argument.

It's not that men are sexualised as well, it's that the portrayal of men is sexist as well.

Games reinforce the archaic notion that "Heroism" is about Physical strength and violence based on obsolete gender roles.

Now before you say "It's still designed for males", yes, It's for males, just as magazines like Vogue are for women.

[Ok maybe not vogue, but magazines targeted at girls, usually teen, that imply this is how you should look]

That doesn't mean their any less harmful.

Sure, but if someone is complaining about the ubiquity of gruffy white bulky male one-liner loving protagonists in their 30s, do you see all these "feminists" joining in the discussion with "...but what about the women?!?" No? Me neither.

 

[EternallyBored]

I absolutely adore how the men who try to shift the focus of female outrage by pointing out how male characters are sexualized too, seem to share the universal and utterly hilarious delusion that Kratos or Marcus Phoenix actually attract a significant number of female fans.

Sorry, boys. If you want to make your point, I'm afraid you're going to have to point out some of those androgynous japanese characters you hate so much, not the testosterone poisoned he-men you wish you were. Sephiroth makes more fangirls in a day than Marcus Phoenix will ever have in his entire existence.

Those that say that are screwing up the argument.

It's not that men are sexualised as well, it's that the portrayal of men is sexist as well.

Games reinforce the archaic notion that "Heroism" is about Physical strength and violence based on obsolete gender roles.

Now before you say "It's still designed for males", yes, It's for males, just as magazines like Vogue are for women.

[Ok maybe not vogue, but magazines targeted at girls, usually teen, that imply this is how you should look]

That doesn't mean their any less harmful.

Sure, but if someone is complaining about the ubiquity of gruffy white bulky male one-liner loving protagonists in their 30s, do you see all these "feminists" joining in the discussion with ...but what about the women?!? No? Me neither.

That's pretty much the crux of the issue, there are legitimate criticisms to make against the portrayal of male characters in video games, but posts like the original topic here basically poisons the well and prevents rational discourse on the subject. Seriously just create a topic that talks about men in media and I would be happy to talk about my views on its problems and issues, but this tactic of posting sarcastically just to degrade any other criticism or responding to any post about women with a simpering, "but what about the men!" doesn't help anyone and does more damage to both sides of the argument than it does to stop complaining from "feminists".

 

[Phrozenflame500]

Hey if it sells, it sells.

Want devs to stop making games with oversexualized men/women in it? Make it unprofitable to do so. Complaining won't help.