Support NeoGAF

[SamNW]

Yes they are.

They are arguing that sexy women in games are damaging to women.

When its not, because it fictional and doesn't affect anyones view of women in real life.

Same as violence in games does not make someone violent. Seeing boobs in a video game doesn't make anyone sexist.

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2015/08/technical-violent-games.pdf

 

[CaviarMeths]

American media is slowly coming around to the notion that boobies and pottymouths aren't shameful acts of Satan. I mean, I'm pretty sure it's only in the last 10 years that video games have even dropped the ol' F-bomb. And we do have games now with sex and softcore nudity, such as God of War and Witcher.

It is? Pretty sure violence and sex both lead to higher age ratings, as does swearing, consumption of drugs, gore and a myriad of other reasons.

The last game to get an AO rating was because of violence not sex.

I think it's important to note though that the violence in a game would need to be far, far more extreme to warrant the AO rating than sex. Hatred is one of the most disgusting, abhorrent pieces of art ever created, bar none. The violence is relentless, oppressive, and sickening, especially given the context and timing.

All it would take for a game/movie to be rated AO/NC-17 for sexuality is a single shot of vaginal penetration. IMO, that is considerably less graphic than, say, someone's intestines being spilled out, which isn't exactly uncommon in M/R-rated media. Add some Romero-esque zombies chewing on said intestines and it even gets to be called "satire" or "black comedy."

 

[Hari Seldon]

I feel like you have to be a special kind of puritan to care about what textures reside on a polygon. We are getting into Approved Art territory with this nonsense. I'm waiting for some liberal arts college to start a Committee on the Proper Texturing of Digital Recreations of the Female Form.

 

[Lord British]

but how are they different then? the reason would then once more go back to the roots

Well, I've never pulled out someone's spine, but I have seen a naked woman.

Violence is almost always exaggerated in the media. We can distance ourselves from it as it is very rare for us to experience violence as it is portrayed in videogames. Misrepresentation of sex is weightier as it is an everyday thing. Sex/consent are deeply psychological and easy to get wrong. That's not to say there's no problem with violence. But I think that's a false equivalency; they're two separate issues.

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

False dichotomy. Both the fetishizing representation of violence and the sexual objectification of women are both problematic issues in society and symptomatic in video games. One doesn't preclude the other.

whynotboth.gif

"How come we're so obsessed with gun crime in the US when we currently consume more food than any other country on Earth"

"Why do people hate mayonnaise when bees kill more people every year"

"Why would you buy an F-150 today when you could catch an STD tomorrow"

 

[SomTervo]

So it's possibly Anglo-American? I wonder if current American media Puritanism (nipple hypocrisy) is really related to Victorian bigotry, considering (as I pointed out) American media (and society) was more open regarding sexuality after the 1960s. It's certainly not a general western thing.
I'd say it's actually more closely related to the currently popular brand of puritan American eye-for-an-eye Christianity (which makes no sense as "eye-for-an-eye" is from the old testament and contradicts the teachings of Jesus).

FYI I direct you to my post on page 2 about this. In my opinion, yes, it stems from Victorian sensibilities from the Industrial Revolution, which were carried over by the abundant immigrants to the USA, and still continue today. There were even widespread pamphlets about nudity and 'good manners' (which included 'prudishness') which were read by tens of thousands. They were challenged by a minority.

It's why you'll find a lot less of this culture immediately east of the UK - eg France and Germany are far more sexually liberal. They talked about 'properness' and 'manners' too, but didn't have the Victorians bearing it down on their small under-thumb audience.

It's all a chicken/egg issue of religion vs culture. Though religion is the catalyst, I reckon.

 

[btags]

For me, it is not that nudity or sex are inappropriate for games, but rather that their portrayal is often clumsy or incredibly awkward (not due to the acts or nudity itself, but things like poor animation, modeling, etc.).

 

[Tecnniqe]

Erotic Violence <3

Spoiler

I couldn't care less what they showcase in a game, as video games are art, in my eyes, which means they can do what they want and it might not be tasteful and it might be offensive to me, but i'd just opt to not purchase it.
I want a DOOM/Dead Space game with a sexy lady and not sexy manmeat. Please

 

[thorsilver]

Well presumably there's a complicated cause and effect going on. People don't turn sexist by consuming sexist media (for the most part), but sexist media prolong a cultural status quo that ensures that the root causes are never properly addressed.

But that implies that the root cause is not down to the consumption of sexist media, and again raises the question of why video games have become a particular target for action when we seem perfectly capable of accepting, generally, that movies/TV/books don't turn people into violent sexists?

Personally I don't see the cultural status quo as being relevant anyway. If no evidence exists that sexist media promotes sexist behaviour, then what is to be gained by pushing for the removal of said media? Restricting what media can portray doesn't result in a better society, it only results in media that never shocks or challenges -- and while shocking/challenging people is not necessarily 'good' by default, it's certainly something that media should be allowed and expected to do.

This all brings to mind the old TV executive mantra of 'least-objectionable programming'. TV was often carefully crafted to minimise how much it challenges people in order to maximise viewing figures across demographics and sell adverts. These days that mantra has disappeared to a large extent, and the consequence has been an explosion of high-quality, challenging serialised drama from a wide variety of content producers.

Right now people seem to be advocating for a 'least-objectionable programming' model for the gaming industry, and to me that can only result in a muzzled, fundamentally shallow medium. If we want gaming to grow, it needs to be allowed to challenge us -- and yes, that will mean accepting the vacuous DOAX3's of the world as much as the Planescape Torments or what have you. I'm not saying that people shouldn't raise their ire if something objectionable shows up, but I do think we need to think carefully about how we respond to that content and whether pushing for it to be excised from the industry is a good thing or not.

 

[LordBaztion]

First of all, its not a gaming isuue only. I guess is somehow related to that violence, either at large or small scale, is a public affair, it is either a criminal offense or a state act. In the other hand sex and secuality until recently a private, very private affair.

 

[Always-honest]

Nudity? Lol, are you sexist or something?

 

[number47]

Sex is a two player game. Violence is one. And we have a shitload of male nudity. It's the female body we can't show. They get super sensitive ,accusing shows of demeaning them when there's a 'hot' chick on screen.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

I think it's important to note though that the violence in a game would need to be far, far more extreme in a game to warrant the AO rating than sex. Hatred is one of the most disgusting, abhorrent pieces of art ever created, bar none. The violence is relentless, oppressive, and sickening, especially given the context and timing.

All it would take for a game/movie to be rated AO/NC-17 for sexuality is a single shot of vaginal penetration. IMO, that is considerably less graphic than, say, someone's intestines being spilled out, which isn't exactly uncommon in M/R-rated media. Add some Romero-esque zombies chewing on said intestines and it even gets to be called "satire" or "black comedy."

Well at that point it'd officially be pornographic and you don't even have to go so far it's enough when you show a dude having an erection beyond a certain degree.

People mentioned The Order 1886 showing a dick, well that had to be flaccid despite that making little sense considering what he was doing right before. Unless he was dry humping the prostitute, who are we to judge.

Taking away the extremes do we know how games with nudity and/or sex are rated when they don't involve violence in addition. Say a game with violence, drug consumption and other themes is rated teen. Would a game with the same themes but nudity and/or sex instead of the violence be rated mature?

As others said in mainland europe usually the rating board is harsher on violence and more forgiving on nudity than the US.

Spoiler

talk about overanalyzing

 

[Griss]

As someone who has always been very uncomfortable with realistic depictions of violence in games (quite possibly why I tend towards Nintendo games) and very positive about sex and nudity in games, the general attitude that violence = good and sex/nudity = bad drives me crazy.

Games are bad at 'X' thing: 'As the medium develops and people attempt to tackle X again and again, we will improve. Gaming is still a young medium. We must try and fail and try again - look how far we've come in 25 years.'

Games are bad at sex: 'Ew, childish and gross, don't people know that sex has no place in video games? I mean, this is VIDEO GAMES, it's a childish, tacky medium. Leave it out, guys.'

 

[SomTervo]

Well presumably there's a complicated cause and effect going on. People don't turn sexist by consuming sexist media (for the most part), but sexist media prolong a cultural status quo that ensures that the root causes are never properly addressed.

There is key terminology people ITT don't understand/aren't aware of.

If someone is 'sexist', that means they actively commit sexist acts or subscribe to their prejudices about women/men/alts (ie they don't see it as/acknowledge it is problematic).

However, 'structural sexism' is when the cultural preconceptions about what is 'okay' or not in a society are sexist, but they are seen as cultural norms and aren't questioned. They are typically not an active sexism, but patterns of beliefs or behaviour which people don't think twice about.

Indeed, by living within a structurally sexist culture, you aren't by de facto sexist. However, it is a damaging culture which marginalises a group or people, and this still needs to be acknowledged for everyone to be treated better. Things have improved massively in our cultures, but there are still problems.

Sex is a two player game. Violence is one.

Neither of these things are true, in neither way that you mean.

 

[Famassu]

But that implies that the root cause is not down to the consumption of sexist media, and again raises the question of why video games have become a particular target for action when we seem perfectly capable of accepting, generally, that movies/TV/books don't turn people into violent sexists?

Poor depicts of nudity & sex are still criticized in media other than games. Perhaps a little less in literature because it's not a visual medium

Spoiler

and no one cares about books anymore lol

, but especially in movies & TV, if something is overly objectifying women or if something like rape & its aftermath is handled poorly, it does get criticized.

 

[John Kowalski]

but how are they different then? the reason would then once more go back to the roots

sex is much more integral to out lives than violent behavior, it's also much greyer, violence is always a negative, at best it's a necessary evil (with the exception of sports but idk if that actually counts as violence?), whereas sex can be good, bad, and even violent sometimes

they each need to be seen as their own thing for them to be properly understood in the context of art

 

[Tecnniqe]

Edit: Wrong topic D:

 

[Kaze2212]

If sex and nudity are being implemented with meaningful purpose or in an intelligent way I think it is fine.

Though only very rarely that is the case and most of the time games can't "get it right" and it just seems comical, which only does more harm than good in my opinion.

If it just feels tacked on for "tit's and ass" as a selling point it is just as silly as any movie that is using it in that way.

Also I think games focusing solely on that aren't as "bad". We also have a porn industry but that one also isn't mainstream in the movie business. A game though would need to sell bigger figures to cover production costs and thus atleast has to try to intrude into the mainstream. And that is just a weird scenario.

Not really full on nudity, but DoAX for example: The only difference between that game and a "gravure idol movie" is that one is a game and the other is a DVD/movie. But you probably won't see any advertisment for that kind of thing outside of some sites where it would make sense.

 

[RM8]

I like Mortal Kombat, but I'd hate gore and fatalities in every game. That's the difference, really, some people seem to believe fanservice begins everywhere.

 

[Sianos]

There is key terminology people ITT don't understand/aren't aware of.

If someone is 'sexist', that means they actively commit sexist acts or subscribe to their prejudices about women (ie they don't see it as/acknowledge it is problematic).

However, 'structural sexism' is when the cultural preconceptions about what is 'okay' or not in a society are sexist, but they are seen as cultural norms and aren't questioned.

Indeed, by living within a structurally sexist culture, you aren't by de facto sexist. However, it is a damaging culture which marginalises a group or people, and this still needs to be acknowledged for everyone to be treated better. Things have improved massively in our cultures, but there are still problems.

Very well said, understanding these definitions and what people mean when they use them is key to understanding what us meant in these discussion.

Also, I think another perspective to take about sexuality in games is that while there is plenty of titillating content, there seems to be very little healthy sexual expression in video games. This sends the message that sexuality is inherently creepy and inherently infringes on people's boundaries - a very unhealthy message to send. This along with the all too common "sex as a reward" trope as opposed to a loving act between two willing participants is what I see as the problen.

 

[Spring-Loaded]

VR games will flip this on its head.

When you have to kill people graphically in believable first-person, you'll be a lot more comfortable with Chun-Li sitting on your face

 

[Mauricio_Magus]

It's always been amusing for me how we are soooo okay with crazy violence in games but nudity is treated like the worst thing in the universe.

It's quite sad and I don't see it changing anytime soon.

There's nothing wrong with nudity, we should celebrate the beauty of the naked body but instead we have so many people bitching about it all day while we get games like God of War and Mortal Kombat and no one cares.

 

[Mr. Giggles]

VR games will flip this on its head.

When you have to kill people graphically in believable first-person, you'll be a lot more comfortable with Chun-Li sitting on your face

I can picture that

 

[SomTervo]

Very well said, understanding these definitions and what people mean when they use them is key to understanding what us meant in these discussion.

Also, I think another perspective to take about sexuality in games is that while there is plenty of titillating content, there seems to be very little healthy sexual expression in video games. This sends the message that sexuality is inherently creepy and inherently infringes on people's boundaries - a very unhealthy message to send. This along with the all too common "sex as a reward" trope as opposed to a loving act between two willing participants is what I see as the problen.

Absolutely agreed, and this ties to the Victorian 'men shouldn't talk about things, that's for women to do' idea which is inferred from my post here on page 2.

If it just feels tacked on for "tit's and ass" as a selling point it is just as silly as any movie that is using it in that way.

You're right - the fact here is that 'tits and ass' for no reason is objectifying these aspects of the female body. Reducing/quantifying the female body to only their highly sexualised parts.

What you're talking about is sexual objectification - a symptom of structural sexism.

 

[muteki]

The problem is more with the perception of videogames as a medium, not the sexual content itself.

Otherwise movies/books like 50 shades wouldn't be released, or albums marked 'Explicit Content'.

Until society can get it out of their head that "its a video game, it has to be appropriate for a 8 year old" this will continue to be a problem. 20+ years later nobody takes the ESRB seriously (which came about primarily because of violence).

 

[ironcreed]

I'll never understand it either and that is why I typically stray from these discussions. I'll just say this. It is perfectly normal and natural for men to enjoy seeing attractive women in sexy clothing and vice versa. That is simply natural instincts that you cannot stop in real life, so to go after it in video games (fictional computer characters) is something that I just find baffling. In short, these outrage crusades to me are no different than the extreme bible-thumping right that want to censor and ban everything.

At any rate, I guess that I am just more about freedom of speech and expression and think that everyone should be able to choose the kinds of content that they want to create or be subjected to without someone else beating a drum and trying to prevent it just because they happen to be offended. When in truth, they could just as easily ignore it, leave others alone to make their own choices and be on their merry way. It really is that simple.

 

[Nozem]

Same thing on GAF. Post gif of Kratos ripping some dude's head off: no problem. Post boobs: banned.

 

[Abusive_Red]

Absolutely agreed, and this ties to the Victorian 'men shouldn't talk about things, that's for women to do' idea which is inferred from my post here on page 2.



You're right - the fact here is that 'tits and ass' for no reason is objectifying these aspects of the female body. Reducing/quantifying the female body to only their highly sexualised parts.

What you're talking about is sexual objectification - a symptom of structural sexism.

Women love being objectified though.

 

[AuthenticM]

FYI I direct you to my post on page 2 about this. In my opinion, yes, it stems from Victorian sensibilities from the Industrial Revolution, which were carried over by the abundant immigrants to the USA, and still continue today. There were even widespread pamphlets about nudity and 'good manners' (which included 'prudishness') which were read by tens of thousands. They were challenged by a minority.

It's why you'll find a lot less of this culture immediately east of the UK - eg France and Germany are far more sexually liberal. They talked about 'properness' and 'manners' too, but didn't have the Victorians bearing it down on their small under-thumb audience.

It's all a chicken/egg issue of religion vs culture. Though religion is the catalyst, I reckon.

This is not an opinion: it's a fact. This is what happened. It's documented.

 

[Emedan]

Well, as for console games and not other media, isn't gaming biggest market in Europ the UK? Which marches lock-step with US values so basically "Europe" fall in line too by sheer dominance so I can see it being a problem (if you see any with it).

I'd say European developers mostly are forced to be modest due to the American market.

 

[Junahu]

I didn't think that sex wasn't in games because it wasn't 'accepted'. I thought that sex lacked the mechanical immediacy of violence, so it just isn't implemented as part of gameplay.

I'm kind of curious to know how a designer would go about creating a game about sex, where the sex itself has the majority of the gameplay depth

 

[webrunner]

when gore is okay and nudity isn't it means you are only not allowed to show the one layer between the clothes and the muscles

 

[SomTervo]

I'll never understand it either and that is why I typically stray from these discussions. I'll just say this. It is perfectly normal and natural for men to enjoy seeing attractive women in sexy clothing and vice versa. That is simply natural instincts that you cannot stop in real life, so to go after it in video games (fictional computer characters) is something that I just find baffling. In short, these outrage crusades to me are no different than the extreme bible-thumping right that want to censor and ban everything.

At any rate, I guess that I am just more about freedom of speech and expression and think that everyone should be able to choose the kinds of content that they want to create or be subjected to without someone else beating a drum and trying to prevent it just because they happen to be offended. When in truth, they could just as easily ignore it, leave others alone to make their own choices and be on their merry way. It really is that simple.

Nobody here is 'going after it' in general. You're right in principle. The problem arises from the subtle cultural preconceptions which tell us it's OK for most characters in games to be male, and all sex/sexiness to be female-only, focusing on 'tits an ass', for want of a better phrase.

Basically, sex and sexy people are obviously fine, and finding people sexy is obviously fine. But when only your women are sexy, and they're written like shells just for sexy bodies - whilst none of your men are sexually focused - that is not fine.

The problem is the imbalance of representation, not the fact of it. Of course finding people, and their biological traits, attractive is natural. Feminism believes that - it is a sex-positive discourse. People should be open to what they find attractive.

The problem here is the cultural preconception (the structural sexism) which makes it a female-marginalising thing.

Women love being objectified though.

...

This is not an opinion: it's a fact. This is what happened. It's documented.

I know. But I don't have time to gather the evidence I'm expecting people to demand, so I'm hedging it as an opinion for now.

 

[GRIMREEFZ]

i find with an acceptable rating they are welcome to put anything into a game that they want.

 

[Tecnniqe]

Same thing on GAF. Post gif of Kratos ripping some dude's head off: no problem. Post boobs: banned.

As with most sites, violence, real or fictional is fine, but some nudies and that's it!

I find it really weird, should we not celebrate the dongers and jayjays?
I think we should, even in games as art.

 

[paragonpro]

Its just American culture which is a huge market. Here, largely because of our nations relatively christian and puritan founding, sex is still very taboo. You can ask most parents and they would tell you they would rather their child see a violent movie than a boob or a dong. Whereas European culture is much different in this regard with higher restrictions on violence but are much more lax about sexuality or nudity. Also the idea of a woman being topless isn't a big deal in some European countries like it is in the U.S

 

[SomTervo]

i find with an acceptable rating they are welcome to put anything into a game that they want.

It's not about the ratings, though. It's about the imbalance of representation. Loads of violence in games, very little nudity/sex. And both are hugely important aspects of the human experience.

I agree in principle with the idea that violence is a way of forcefully overcoming obstacles - and a 'game' of any type is an exercise in forcing your way past obstacles.

Its just American culture which is a huge market. Here, largely because of our nations relatively christian and puritan founding, sex is still very taboo. You can ask most us parents and they would tell you they would rather their child see a violent movie than a boob or a dong. Whereas European culture is much different in this regard with higher restrictions on violent but are much more lax about sexuality or nudity. Also the idea of a woman being topless isn't a big deal in some European countries like it is in the U.S

This isn't 100% accurate - see my post here about Victorian England being the root cause of this, and also Europe has a far broader range of cultures than the USA. Lots of places are 'sexually liberal' (eg France, Germany), lots of places aren't (eg Italy, Serbia).

 

[Apathy]

This isn't a western problem it's a USA problem. It's also not a video game problem but a visual medium problem. Despite the fact that the US is home to the biggest porn empires, sex is still seen as taboo and it has to do with the underlying puritan heritage of the states. Where gratuitous violence (specially gun violence) is perfectly fine, the world would end if a woman's nipple is shown.

The funny thing is that in literature this isn't even an issue. The amount of smutty "romance" novels consumption is huge. I guess if you imagine it in your head then is fine but if it's shown to you it isn't.

 

[Hektor]

I didn't think that sex wasn't in games because it wasn't 'accepted'. I thought that sex lacked the mechanical immediacy of violence, so it just isn't implemented as part of gameplay.

I'm kind of curious to know how a designer would go about creating a game about sex, where the sex itself has the majority of the gameplay depth

The adventure game polymorphus perversity comes to my mind.

 

[Cizeta-Moroder]

Could sexist connotations be avoided if the game took place in random alternate universes with procedurally generated humanoid genitals and gender relations? Actually, now I'm inspired to make that game. Objective is to have as much tasteful and sustainable sex as possible.

 

[SomTervo]

This isn't a western problem it's a USA problem. It's also not a video game problem but a visual medium problem. Despite the fact that the US is home to the biggest porn empires, sex is still seen as taboo and it has to do with the underlying puritan heritage of the states. Where gratuitous violence (specially gun violence) is perfectly fine, the world would end if a woman's nipple is shown.

The funny thing is that in literature this isn't even an issue. The amount of smutty "romance" novels consumption is huge. I guess if you imagine it in your head then is fine but if it's shown to you it isn't.

This just isn't true at all - why is this thread so US-centric?

It's a huge problem across the world in many countries. I'm in the UK and any form of nudity in any mainstream media is still largely frowned upon and draws huge numbers of complaints - but naturally there's still broad nude-free oversexualisation of women which is rampant as always.

 

[BGBW]

Hell you want another one thrown into the mix: drug use. I've found video games make drug use not seem all that bad with many encouraging you to get loaded up on some drugs. Yet you don't see advocates running about making video series about rampant drug use in video games.

But remember: Winners Don't Use Drugs.

 

[ironcreed]

Nobody here is 'going after it' in general. You're right in principle. The problem arises from the subtle cultural preconceptions which tell us it's OK for most characters in games to be male, and all sex/sexiness to be female-only, focusing on 'tits an ass', for want of a better phrase.

Basically, sex and sexy people are obviously fine, and finding people sexy is obviously fine. But when only your women are sexy, and they're written like shells just for sexy bodies - whilst none of your men are sexually focused - that is not fine.

The problem is the imbalance of representation, not the fact of it. Of course finding people, and their biological traits, attractive is natural. Feminism believes that - it is a sex-positive discourse. People should be open to what they find attractive.

The problem here is the cultural preconception (the structural sexism) which makes it a female-marginalising thing.

I don't know. I see plenty of muscular, modelesque, handsome hero type males in videogames that are the kind of guys that women would go nuts over in real life. But yes, there is certainly a larger focus on sexualized women in games that are made to cater to the large male audiences who naturally like to see such things. I just don't have a problem with it because men enjoy seeing sexy women. It is simply that cut and dried for me. It is what it is.

 

[twobear]

there's just no way they're cluelessly referencing this right

 

[entremet]

In the context of both sex AND violence, violence and military/weaponry fetish figures into the core of many video games' appeal. It's just as much tapping into the dark psychology drawn from our skewed society as any sexualization of women is.

Or is violence next on the agenda to scrub from gaming?

I'm a fan of these discussion and I think Anita Sarkessian is doing a good things. But it can't be one-sided and it's not like Anita's arguments are airtight either.

 

[MagnaderAlpha]

It really depends. OP says sex is a beautiful thing, but you gotta think that games are about clearing objectives. Using sex as an objective or motivation would quickly be labeled as being misogynistic and open a whole new can of worms.

Violence, on the other hand, is more acceptable because it's often trivialized via "black and white" perception. You play as a good guy(in most accounts, and even if you are an "anti-hero", there are far worse and vile people out there than you), so fighting, destruction and killing become obvious objectives(particularly when it's against enemies that are threatening your progress or the safety of the country/world in general), especially in games that focus around adventure and action aspects(which a LOT do). It think it comes with the symbolism of moving forward by tearing down the wall the limits your progression. The act of tearing something down could be considered violent in itself. But to progress in society(and self), something HAS to be torn down to make a new path ahead(be it physically or internally). All struggles come with the tearing down of things to make way for newer, better and(hopefully) safer things.

Now I wouldn't be against more sex or sexuality within games(story-wise), but to demonize violence(well, fictional violence, as what games portray) is kinda silly. Violence, in real life, IS horrible, but I don't see the problem in games themselves. Similar to some movies. I do hear people saying, "Why do you like violent movies! That's wrong, especially when sex and nudity in movies are looked down upon.". To me, while sex isn't a problem, pointing fingers won't solve much(its become a polarizing argument).

In regards to movies, violence is only useful in genres that call for it(like games). You expect more violence in Action movies and Horror movies. And even though Horror movies are more liberal with nudity and sex(somewhat), violent acts and imagery are still a big part BECAUSE the genre's meant to HORRIFY the viewer.

 

[nakedeyes]

OP talks like there is a trove of nudity filled games that are made in Europe/by Europe. But there aren't.

In actuality, in the pantheon of games with tits/dicks, about an equal amount of them are produced in America. In actuality, has there ever been a story about a game not selling in US due to nudity?

Really, we do have a problem with selling AO-rated games in stores, but when those titles do come out: they aren't banned in the states, you can still purchase them digitally often times. When those same rare games come out, do you ever hear of them banned in the states? No. You hear about them being banned in Australia and Germany.

The only time games seem to be censored for America, is when Japanese developers release their games in the states. That isn't us asking for that, that's them thinking we aren't ready for it yet ( just like in the 80s/90s when most Japanese games had all religious content removed ). Same thing happening with DOAx now. We aren't banning the game in the states, there is a vocal minority who want the game even! But Tecmo doesn't want to release it for us.

I guess I see what the the OP is talking about, but it's presented very strangely. Video Games are much more a world wide medium than film ( in my opinion of course ), in particular, there are almost zero games that come out in Italy and not in US ( and vice versa, and I said almost zero I'm sure there's an example somewhere ). The OP is presented like there is a bunch of art house esque sexy Italian/EU games that US gamers can't handle, and while this certainly is the case for film, it is not at all the case in games.

At least 2/3 of the AAA games with nudity I can think of were made by American studios. The only games I can think of that we're banned in the states are like Rapelay and god awful shit like that.

 

[SomTervo]

I don't know. I see plenty of muscular, modelesque, handsome hero type males in videogames that are the kind of guys that women would go nuts over in real life. But yes, there is certainly a larger focus on sexualized women in games that are made to cater to the large male audiences who naturally like to see such things. I just don't have a problem with it because men enjoy seeing sexy women. It is simply that cut and dried for me. It is what it is.

1. They exist, but they're in the minority. And worse, the contexts rarely add up. See the recent whistleblow about the (possibly Bioware) studio where all the male characters were normal-shaped, skilled men, with opinions and discussions, while the female characters were reduced to single adjectives ('crazy') and were overly sexualised. In tons of contexts where male characters are not sexualised, female characters are. In the industry's defence, I've seen more and better representation of nudity/women in the last couple of years than in the 20 years beforehand. Wolfenstein: The New Order, for instance, killed it.

2. Women enjoy seeing sexy men, too. That's equally cut and dried. But there's infinitely fewer games which sexualise men in the same way, reducing them to just crazy arms, asses, and thighs. They exist, but there are more complicated ways about how they are portrayed differently, usually intelligent, valued for their key skills, etc).

There aren't entire games made for western women to enjoy sexy men, whereas there are entire series based around sexy women for men to enjoy. Don't you see what I'm getting at?

I'm a fan of these discussion and I think Anita Sarkessian is doing a good things. But it can't be one-sided and it's not like Anita's arguments are airtight either.

Yeah, I love the message that Anita is pushing, but even 'not airtight' is an exaggeration, haha. A lot of her arguments are full on selective and ill-informed.

Still, the message is good.

 

[Nirolak]

I feel parts of this thread are trying to equate the situation in 2005 with the situation in 2015, when they're actually very different.

In ~2005, we were having debates around topics like Hot Coffee, Jack Thompson/Leland Ye, and Mass Effect, where the question was clearly "Why is there sex in these toys for children!!!"

That era has long since passed in the West and having nudity and sex in games is a completely non-issue on that basis.

For example, let's take The Witcher 3. It's a game where you can have graphic, full nudity sex scenes, can sleep with multiple women, and can even sleep with multiple women at the same time. There was no real controversy around this. If you look at the only "sexy thing" controversy the game actually had, it was that people felt Ciri's heels were impractical for Witcher fighting.

As you may notice from this, the debate in the West in 2015 revolves around the context of sexuality rather than sexuality itself.

This is why the whole Dead or Alive Xtreme 3 scenario is ridiculous. Feel free to go through this 365 post thread entitled "Dead or Alive Xtreme 3 (PS4/Vita) - Debut Gameplay Teaser Trailer & Screenshots" and point out all the times people complain about the game. If you don't want do, I've already done so and can tell you there are none. Someone mentioned that there was one other lengthy thread where they saw a couple of complaints, but we're looking at a very low ratio of complaints happening here if at all. The reason is that the context of the game is clearly to gawk at women in swimsuits who are at the beach, so there's nothing about mostly naked women that actually seems out of place here.

Now let's move on to a character who generated a lot of controversy: Cindy from Final Fantasy XV. So the premise of Final Fantasy XV is that you're going on a brotastic road trip on your way to an arranged marriage.

Let's imagine that FF15 was a modern WRPG instead and the developers wanted her to be a sexual character. When you first meet her, she'd likely be fully dressed, maybe with her regular mechanic's jumpsuit somewhat unzipped. You'd then be able to flirt with her, go on a date to a nearby restaurant, and then have sex with her. In the sex scene, she'd wander out in the outfit she has now and make some terrible pun about how "I'm dressed to fix a different kind of problem today." and then she'd end up stripping off the top and you'd see boobs and an actual sex scene. This is the type of thing that would go unnoticed in 2015, because it's fully contextualized and generally expected.

However, this is a T-rated Japanese game where they actually view their audience as potentially having lots of children, so instead of putting that in or even having implied sex scenes when a guy is on his way to get married, we just have her sitting there mostly naked as part of her regular work attire. There doesn't appear to be any attempt to actually contextualize this either beyond the game just going "LOOK!! BOOBS!!!". When Tabata was asked about her character, it's not like he sat down and went "Well we're making a T-rated game, but it's in the style of R-rated road trip movies, and thus we're attempting to get into that raunchy nature while still keeping it appropriate for younger teens. As such, Cid runs a series of mechanics shops called 'Tube Lube' that are essentially like Hooters. This is why Cindy is dressed this way. It will be clear in the full game." Instead, his answer was basically "Our artists wanted to make a hot chick and I didn't want to bother coming up with a reason for it."

The defense of nudity/sexuality in the 2005 era and the complaints about arbitrarily sexualized outfits in the 2015 era are actually coming from the same place. It's about people not wanting to be treated like children.