Alright, so on another site debating the Fire Emblem controversy right now someone made an aside about one of the characters, Camilla and how the design focused "completely on her breasts and how you'd never see something like that focused on a penis" so blahblah sexism etc.
For reference this is the character they were talking about:
Two things occurred to me; one, yes it does happen -
Hi, super-bulge!
And two...this seems like a weird comparison to make. But its made all the time - on Youtube, on gaming forums, about comics and other forms of media, and even here on the Escapist.
But it seems like a weird stretch. For one - breasts aren't a primary sexual characteristic a penis is - the vagina is its analogue. Second, it seems to ignore several things, like how men in fiction are still being depicted in a sexual ideal for women although often taken a little far for women's taste (as noted here before, men seem much more willing to accept exaggerated things for anatomy than women are) and probably more importantly, how the nether regions of humans are treated in their depictions.
The rule seems to hold the same for both men and women - you can HINT the penis/vagina, have all the ass shots you want, and show udnerwear etc.; but actually depicting them with any definition (IE: Camel toe) is reserved for actual/borderline porn. They're explicitly sexual organs and they're treated as such.
Women's breasts however fall into this gray area where they're not explicitly sexual themselves, but they're very sexual for men (because that is how our brains work). And they're still considered naughty because of that in many areas, so they become that much more tantalizing in media (and life) because of it.
The equivalent would seem to be more shirtless men with nice pecs...but there are already A LOT of those around, and they don't seem to do it for women the same way breasts do it for men.
I almost feel as if the complaint is rooted less in the display and more in the discrepancy of enjoyment than anything else.
For reference this is the character they were talking about:
Two things occurred to me; one, yes it does happen -
Hi, super-bulge!
And two...this seems like a weird comparison to make. But its made all the time - on Youtube, on gaming forums, about comics and other forms of media, and even here on the Escapist.
But it seems like a weird stretch. For one - breasts aren't a primary sexual characteristic a penis is - the vagina is its analogue. Second, it seems to ignore several things, like how men in fiction are still being depicted in a sexual ideal for women although often taken a little far for women's taste (as noted here before, men seem much more willing to accept exaggerated things for anatomy than women are) and probably more importantly, how the nether regions of humans are treated in their depictions.
The rule seems to hold the same for both men and women - you can HINT the penis/vagina, have all the ass shots you want, and show udnerwear etc.; but actually depicting them with any definition (IE: Camel toe) is reserved for actual/borderline porn. They're explicitly sexual organs and they're treated as such.
Women's breasts however fall into this gray area where they're not explicitly sexual themselves, but they're very sexual for men (because that is how our brains work). And they're still considered naughty because of that in many areas, so they become that much more tantalizing in media (and life) because of it.
The equivalent would seem to be more shirtless men with nice pecs...but there are already A LOT of those around, and they don't seem to do it for women the same way breasts do it for men.
I almost feel as if the complaint is rooted less in the display and more in the discrepancy of enjoyment than anything else.
