I feel like you and I are talking about different things now. I think this topic is to discuss how developer applied "sex sells" mentality to their product and whether it work or not. And as I mentioned in my first post in the thread, I think It's effectness varies from game to game.
A reasonable statement perhaps, but I cannot help but feel that that in the context of this thread, the manner of which and how the examples that have been selected, have been biased to show a distorted view. It's dredging of social constructs, and it becomes an easy defense to fall back on, by simply back pedaling to "it depends on the game".
Crossing Edgen displays ignorance on the meaning of the word and is disingenious in the portrayal of the examples (selection bias and confirmation bias).
This is not a semantic argument about shouting bout what sex sells, but more of the orchestration on that sexualization is an amplification of a surface level examination, and nothing else.
I am actually very much in a industry that involves beauty and appeal, which is also related to advertising. Just let me chin in to say that the idea that "beauty" sells equal to "sex sells" is false, even if beauty and sex appeal are closely related. There are many instance where the advertising of/with beauty has nothing to do with sex appeal(If you want to go into detail, we will have to discuss something rather OOT like "why women want to dress up when they don't do it to appeal to men(or anyone really).")
I never claimed that beauty sells to the same levels that sex sells. But once again; What is the objective of drawing a line in the sand like this. First of all, you cannot possible make such a statement. Across the sea of infinite variablers that goes into it; motivation of sender and receiver, receivers personal preferences on what beauty is and so on- Doesn't matter.
Beauty and attractiveness is a part of sexualization, and since what is beautiful and what is attractive is subjective, just like peoples ideas of romanticism, intimacy and so on, you cannot jargon that only slutty dressed fictional characters are the only ones being sexualized. OP argues that Nathan Drake is not sexualized because it wasn't NDs intent. He argues that Lara Croft is not sexualized because you don't see much of her skin.
Furthermore, I can imagine that there has been situations where a more subtle approach, relying on not showing skins have been the right move for the right audience, for the right product; But that's besides the point.
Because for a lot of people who don't want tits and ass shoved in against the screens, a pretty beautiful face is more than enough to give them the sexual fantasy needed. It's still running on the same fumes; It's still microtargeted and decided by the creators and designers that the character should be beautiful to sell more product.
The beauty is as exploitative as sex.
Reducing the conversation to which is the worse one is pointless.
There is no point to semantize that angle beyond trying to ring home a false agenda that showing of skin or pornographic expression is the main problem.
The main problem is unrealistic beauty standards that warps people self image.
That is the key. That is what all of this is about. If this isn't what the OP is about then, sexualization in the current incarnation is not a problem. Which is false. We all know sexualization is a problem because sexualization is everywhere. And so is beauty, and beauty has just as much if not deeper penetrating effects on making people feel bad about their own bodies.
One of my initial points was that you cannot blank-slate western customs and ideals, when such a narrow view point is irrelevant to large parts of the world. In India; Kissing is seen as almost sex, where as in large parts of the west, kissing is not that big of a deal. You got different interpretations of what is sex, what is attractive and what is beauty, and I am opposed to the whole assumption that Crossing Eden or anyone else.
Here is the thing- Intent matters, but intent of others have nothing to do with your sexuality or sexual preference.
That's the key. Why or why not a character is attractive, has nothing to do with your sexuality. Why or wy not women want to dress up has nothing to do with your sexuality. When you're arguing what the OP is saying, you're arguing that there is one western framed way to view sexualization, as well as that there is no difference on a subjective level on the individuals interpretation.
