Support NeoGAF

[Cactuarman]

A lot to respond to so apologies for the length:

Could you explain that spectrum? Give some examples of the gradients between "I'm fine with certain content existing" and "I'm not fine with certain content sexisting" ?

Within the spectrum you mention I'd say grey areas would be the specific lines-in-the-sand that would push someone from "I'm fine with this" to "I'm not fine with this" - is the issue that the women are too young? Are the women too busty? Is the armor to impractical? Are the characters too one-dimensional? Is it just fan service in general? etc etc

What I tried to call out in my original example though is that even within all those examples, the extra element that would concern me is: "but do they want to then ban it?" I understand someone saying "I don't like that Doom is so violent" but what I will never get behind is "you shouldn't be able to purchase Doom because I think it's too violent".

I'm afraid I don't quite understand your hypothetical. If someone said to me they didn't like violent games I'd just do... nothing? I don't have to convince them of the greatness of violent games or whatever. There's plenty of violent games I don't like so I don't play 'em. Frankly, I don't think there's much of a discussion to be had in such a case.

The comment I responded to asked for a suggestion for "how we could deal with content existing that a certain group hates to the point they want to reduce its prevalence as much as possible?"

I'd only suggest you do "nothing" if that group isn't interested in actually engaging with you, and only wants to tell you how terrible a thing is (my example was those religious people who seem to be outside of every convention). Not saying you can't shout back at them or whatever but ultimately you probably wont make much headway with that group. However, if someone wants to talk about an issue then yeah, hopefully one could get into a nice dialogue about it.

What I think everyone can and should do, regardless of if some person/group/organization/whatever only cares about telling you how terrible your video game is, is vote with your wallet. Dragon's Crown selling and reviewing well got us PS3, Vita, and PS4 versions (I own them all because that game is amazing), regardless of some group is shitting on the Sorceress. And there are probably even people who wish they toned her down a bit BUT also still played the hell out of that game.

In my view, this discussion is only happening because people have expressed the desire for games to change in a big way. And that change would mean greatly reducing or even leaving behind aspects of games we currently enjoy. The people who didn't advocate for that change... There's nothing much to discuss with them.

You're right for the most part here - I just think that "change" means different things to different groups. Fuck anyone wanting content to be removed from existence. BUT, I personally think that there is a big difference between someone saying "DOA Xtreme is gross and should be banned" and someone saying "yeah maybe we don't need another game where a hero saves a princess".

Personally, I really don't agree with that first group but I am open to seeing what that second group does. Frankly I think the idea of playing a Zelda game as Zelda sounds pretty cool (maybe a weird example but that's the first thing I thought of).

Maybe I'm wrong, but I remember you expressing your disappointment before with how discussions on controversial subjects are going on this forum, and I wonder if you do the same elsewhere. Maybe you just have a very high opinion on GAF and want its members to do even better?

That's a fair statement, but it applies to a lot of places/forums/etc. That said I think there are already a lot of great members here - some I agree with and some I don't. And in general I like having these debates here because it isn't as much of an echo chamber as Era. But yeah, I'm not a fan of people jumping into these threads and just throwing out strawmans or hyperbolic generalizations or whatever. If a thread is inviting discussion, let's have a nice discussion. If a thread is just for ranting then I'll move on to another thread. So no, I don't really go elsewhere because this is the place I want to be.

I think it would be really interesting to talk about where people's specific lines are. Instead it seems like a lot of this thread is more of an "us vs them" kind of deal, which doesn't really get at the thread's question.

I think I should have worded it better, so let me do that, please.

Also, I am an alpha playtester for a card game that will be released via kickstarter at around this Spring, but I can't tell more about it, my apologies.

What I meant with my statement is that when a creator or a creative team(s) create a medium, they usually have a specific group(s) in mind that target and cater to, now those people that I mentioned above, the censorers and co-opters don't wish to go through the process of creating something from scratch, they wish to be given creative direction of an ongoin/oblated creation, so they would shape it in their own way to cater to them, most often than not, in the distinct dismay of the intended/targeted audience.

People who created Go Home and Dream Daddy Simulator are creating their own venues. People who were given creative administration to Tomb Raider ever since the 00's co-opted a creation.

Thanks for the clarification. I mean yeah I think we kind of agree on the co-opting thing. However, I don't think your Tomb Raider example is co-opting. Crystal Dynamics started on Tomb Raider with Legend in 2006 and then also handled the reboot in 2013. The developer swap came between Angel of Darkness (Core Design) and Legend because Angel wasn't very good. Eidos gave the series to Crystal Dynamics (and I think Core even folded as a studio).

The question is is it worth to listen to these people or not. Right now it seems it is not. AKA Andromedaas huge example

Pretty sure that the representation discussion isn't what sunk Andromeda

 

[plushyp]

Well, he *is* a man. Obviously he knows women better than women know themselves! White Knights gotta White Knight.

Of course he is a male feminist "ally" i dont know why i had any doubt that we finally found a real woman who hate these sexy designs and hear what she think about this subject but no, its just another random dude rescuing women and defending their honor in his spare time on gaming forums lol.

You two are giving Snoopycat way too much credit. From what I have observed, unfortunately 99% of his post history is filled with either sad satire, drive by shit posts or poor parody.

 

[InterMusketeer]

Within the spectrum you mention I'd say grey areas would be the specific lines-in-the-sand that would push someone from "I'm fine with this" to "I'm not fine with this" - is the issue that the women are too young? Are the women too busty? Is the armor to impractical? Are the characters too one-dimensional? Is it just fan service in general? etc etc

I'll just be frank: those grey areas you mentioned just come down to people saying "I'm for removal of content I didn't like in the first place" in which case you would end up in the "Not fine with some types of content existing"-group.

What I tried to call out in my original example though is that even within all those examples, the extra element that would concern me is: "but do they want to then ban it?" I understand someone saying "I don't like that Doom is so violent" but what I will never get behind is "you shouldn't be able to purchase Doom because I think it's too violent".

But that statement is a dead end. It's like saying "I don't like peanuts." Okay? Good for you? But usually statements like this are made in context: "I don't like peanuts, I wish there weren't so many candy bars with peanuts in."

The comment I responded to asked for a suggestion for "how we could deal with content existing that a certain group hates to the point they want to reduce its prevalence as much as possible?"

Oh. In that case I'd say the same I've been saying in this thread: Tough shit if you can't handle things existing that you don't like. We all hate things that exist, and some people even hate existing themselves. Not much to do about it really. And I would have some respect for them if it was just a selfish request (I make those all the time), but that's usually not why these types demand change. It's because their dogma tells them it's evil and affecting the real world. It was that way with Jack Thompson, and we're seeing it again with intersectional feminists, who, even if they aren't the biggest group, really set the tone for this discussion.

What I think everyone can and should do, regardless of if some person/group/organization/whatever only cares about telling you how terrible your video game is, is vote with your wallet. Dragon's Crown selling and reviewing well got us PS3, Vita, and PS4 versions (I own them all because that game is amazing), regardless of some group is shitting on the Sorceress. And there are probably even people who wish they toned her down a bit BUT also still played the hell out of that game.

I fully agree.

You're right for the most part here - I just think that "change" means different things to different groups. Fuck anyone wanting content to be removed from existence. BUT, I personally think that there is a big difference between someone saying "DOA Xtreme is gross and should be banned" and someone saying "yeah maybe we don't need another game where a hero saves a princess".

Personally, I really don't agree with that first group but I am open to seeing what that second group does.

That second one bothers me to no end. Who's "we"? Why does this person get to decide what "we" need or want? Why do they think they're representing a group anyway? They're also turning an opinion into a problem. Again: content existing that one doesn't like shouldn't be a problem. If one considers it a problem anyway, THAT is the actual problem, and that's what this discussion is about.

Frankly I think the idea of playing a Zelda game as Zelda sounds pretty cool (maybe a weird example but that's the first thing I thought of).

I'm fine with playable Zelda, but mostly because I just want to see her interact more with people and the world, and I want to learn more about her than was possible with her running off or getting stuck somewhere.

That's a fair statement, but it applies to a lot of places/forums/etc. That said I think there are already a lot of great members here - some I agree with and some I don't. And in general I like having these debates here because it isn't as much of an echo chamber as Era. But yeah, I'm not a fan of people jumping into these threads and just throwing out strawmans or hyperbolic generalizations or whatever. If a thread is inviting discussion, let's have a nice discussion. If a thread is just for ranting then I'll move on to another thread. So no, I don't really go elsewhere because this is the place I want to be.

Fair enough. Sometimes it just comes off as a bit dismissive. I just try to ignore posts I don't think are thought through.

 

[SolidJungle]

I've met women that don't like the portrayal of women in videos games; and these are perfectly confident women. Just because they see a problem with how women characters in some games are literally only there for eye candy; doesn't been they're insecure on their looks.

 

[Dunki]

Pretty sure that the representation discussion isn't what sunk Andromeda

It is a hige part of why this game is so lifeless. Bioware today makes basically checklists of what kind of characters they should have. Mostly it is for crew members. A man, woman, a black guy, a asian person, a öesbian. These are their traits. Furthermore for NPCs you had token characters which told you in the first 30 seconds for example how they are trans, black, lesbian etc.

Bioware rather hired a diverse staff with a few racist people like this manveer person instead of going by talent. We had a game that was graphically worse than Mass Effect 1. We had tons of bugs that would give Fallout 76 pretty big competition. Their whole marketing was about how diverse this games and their staff is.

 

[Danjin44]

I've met women that don't like the portrayal of women in videos games; and these are perfectly confident women. Just because they see a problem with how women characters in some games are literally only there for eye candy; doesn't been they're insecure on their looks.

And woman out there who like sexy female character design in video games and even like to cosplay as them. Each people have different taste, what else is new. All people have to do is play what they like and don't play what they don't like. We have plenty of games with non sexy character designs. There is room for both, there is no need one of them completely disappear in face of the earth.

 

[Ascend]

I've met women that don't like the portrayal of women in videos games; and these are perfectly confident women. Just because they see a problem with how women characters in some games are literally only there for eye candy; doesn't been they're insecure on their looks.

How many of those enjoyed the Fast & Furious franchise?

 

[MarkusR]

I think it is normal that developers try to create female and male characters in games attractive and sexualized. I don't know what about girls but on guys it holds a good impression so there are only advantages from it

 

[El_Belmondo]

but on guys it holds a good impression so there are only advantages from it

When they're used in a serious context it can be quite ridiculous though.

 

[Saruhashi]

What I meant with my statement is that when a creator or a creative team(s) create a medium, they usually have a specific group(s) in mind that target and cater to, now those people that I mentioned above, the censorers and co-opters don't wish to go through the process of creating something from scratch, they wish to be given creative direction of an ongoin/oblated creation, so they would shape it in their own way to cater to them, most often than not, in the distinct dismay of the intended/targeted audience.

Nicely put.

I would add that they don't just want to "co-opt" existing franchises etc they outright go after any games aimed at "the presumed straight, male, audience".

So if they perceive that a game encourages the "male gaze" then that's a major point of criticism for that game.

Even with the likes of Far Cry 5 they will go after a game for not really having the political message that THEY want to hear.

It makes no sense because in other mediums you do have content that is sexualized and openly marketed as such.

A company can set themselves up to produce porno movies and nobody in the larger movie industry is making a stink. If anything you would come under fire for being against porn because that's discrimination against sex-workers. The attitude is just "meh, porn exists" and people are free to like it or not like it. FFS some porn even has storylines but you wouldn't see movie sites posting articles like "I want to watch Horny Secretaries Vol 45 but the pornographic content makes me feel alienated".

Yet when that PUA guy released his Super Seduction game the video game community was completely outraged to the extent of trying to get the game banned.

That makes no sense to me. It's a lame game sure but it's for a VERY specific audience so just leave them to it, no? Instead you have people in the industry whining because this is the reason they don't feel welcome.

It feels like the only thing that would satisfy these folks would be complete control over which games developers can deliver to gamers.

In movies they have rating boards etc that kind of help to deal with this stuff. You slap and M for mature or 18 or whatever on a film and you give a wee list of things that appear in that movie "violence, sex, drugs" etc and then you leave it up to the audience. You make sure there is nothing outright illegal in the movie and you move on.

Music has the "explicit content" warning.

So it SHOULD be as easy as that for gaming. "This game is rated 18+, sexualized content". Done. Problem solved.

That's not what people seem to want though. They seem to want to pressurize Playstation, Steam etc into a position where games with certain, perfectly legal, content should not be released because it's bad for the community at large.

 

[Dunki]

That makes no sense to me. It's a lame game sure but it's for a VERY specific audience so just leave them to it, no? Instead you have people in the industry whining because this is the reason they don't feel welcome.

Especially the second game is comedy gold. People play this game by the way also many women did stream this because they wanted to have a fucking great time.

 

[Cactuarman]

I'll just be frank: those grey areas you mentioned just come down to people saying "I'm for removal of content I didn't like in the first place" in which case you would end up in the "Not fine with some types of content existing"-group.

Frankly, I don't care. Someone else not liking content that I like doesn't matter to me. I agree that someone not liking something would probably mean that they're fine with it not existing. But.... so? That doesn't mean they want to take it from me. Voting with your wallet is what matters. Doom sold and reviewed well. Nier sold and reviewed well. Soul Calibur sold and reviewed well. A good game and strong sales numbers mean that publishers can ignore anyone with a "problem" with violence and sexuality.

I don't have the energy to try to convince everyone I come across to validate the content I like because it just isn't going to happen. Happy to discuss with someone who is open to discuss, but otherwise someone simply going "I don't like that and I don't care to" doesn't really bother me.

But that statement is a dead end. It's like saying "I don't like peanuts." Okay? Good for you? But usually statements like this are made in context: "I don't like peanuts, I wish there weren't so many candy bars with peanuts in."

Okay, but that second statement doesn't concern me until someone takes an active step in removing candy bars with peanuts. If I like Peanut M&Ms best (I do) and come across 4 bowls with different types of M&Ms, I might come out and say "damn I wish all of these bowls were Peanut M&Ms" but I'm not going to dump out the other bowls.

To take this a step further, someone may even be like "hey, here are some regular M&Ms" and I'd say "no thanks, I don't like those. More Peanut M&Ms would have been nice but whatever". And we all go on with our days.

Oh. In that case I'd say the same I've been saying in this thread: Tough shit if you can't handle things existing that you don't like. We all hate things that exist, and some people even hate existing themselves. Not much to do about it really. And I would have some respect for them if it was just a selfish request (I make those all the time), but that's usually not why these types demand change. It's because their dogma tells them it's evil and affecting the real world. It was that way with Jack Thompson, and we're seeing it again with intersectional feminists, who, even if they aren't the biggest group, really set the tone for this discussion.

Totally agree

That second one bothers me to no end. Who's "we"? Why does this person get to decide what "we" need or want? Why do they think they're representing a group anyway? They're also turning an opinion into a problem. Again: content existing that one doesn't like shouldn't be a problem. If one considers it a problem anyway, THAT is the actual problem, and that's what this discussion is about.

Someone saying "yeah maybe we don't need another game where a hero saves a princess" isn't really taking anything away from you, or removing Mario games from the world. If that person is a content creator maybe they'll make a game like Braid. If they're a writer maybe they'll inspire a game like Braid. And honestly even if they're alone in their opinion (realistically they probably aren't) but sales will confirm or deny that. Even if they are alone, I'd still rather they be able to express it.

It was a simple hypothetical so I didn't really include their thoughts on whether too many princesses were a problem or not, but again, I don't care. As I'm sure many of us have done, I had to convince my parents that video games in general weren't a problem, or a waste of time, or making me more violent, or could be artistic, etc. etc. Someone simply thinking something is a problem doesn't really scare me.

Inability to buy content scares me. And inability to express ideas scares me.

I'm fine with playable Zelda, but mostly because I just want to see her interact more with people and the world, and I want to learn more about her than was possible with her running off or getting stuck somewhere.

Yeah seriously this sounds awesome.

Fair enough. Sometimes it just comes off as a bit dismissive. I just try to ignore posts I don't think are thought through.

I mean, criticizing some people on GAF does not equal criticizing everyone on GAF or GAF as a whole. This is a public forum where nearly all of the discussion is great. But yeah, occasionally I find myself having to argue that SJWs haven't taken over Tomb Raider simply because she's "average looking" and her breasts are smaller, and then I step back and go "what am I doing right now? I should get some work done".

And I mean ultimately if you're putting a thought out onto a public forum, sometimes you're going to get challenged. And part of my concern when threads turn into a big circle-jerk is that we're no longer discussing things. And then what's the point? Are we here to share ideas or just rant about something? I'm hoping sharing ideas.

You and I discussing like this is ultimately what I like.

It is a hige part of why this game is so lifeless. Bioware today makes basically checklists of what kind of characters they should have. Mostly it is for crew members. A man, woman, a black guy, a asian person, a öesbian. These are their traits. Furthermore for NPCs you had token characters which told you in the first 30 seconds for example how they are trans, black, lesbian etc.

Bioware rather hired a diverse staff with a few racist people like this manveer person instead of going by talent. We had a game that was graphically worse than Mass Effect 1. We had tons of bugs that would give Fallout 76 pretty big competition. Their whole marketing was about how diverse this games and their staff is.

I don't think you're really contradicting me. The original Mass Effect had a diverse cast, but they were interesting. Andromeda has mediocre graphics, poor animation, bugs, a boring cast of characters... none of these things are the fault of representation. Having a diverse cast is mutually exclusive with every other problem you mentioned.

If their whole marketing was about diversity they could still have turned out a good game. It's possible to hire a diverse BUT ALSO talented staff.

 

[petran79]

Forgive me for interjecting myself in the discussion, but this caught my eye and I wish to offer my prespective on it, if you don't mind.
rs similar to me be injecting your own standards, your own story twist, your own agenda, your own opinions, your own beliefs in it that may or may not be antithetical to mine and me, instead of like I mentioned create it your own?"

Because I think this is the problem, mostly, with the censorers (for lack of better word) and co-opters (also for lack of better word), they don't wish to start something from scratch, and create something for them and like-minding individuals, they wish to be handed the creative keys to the traditional and core valuable work, and getting access to it, pushing the original people, the original cast and the original meaning of the creation out in favour of their own.

And to me, this is unacceptable, to me this is not a creative process, it is at best a disruptive process and at worst a destructive process.

And because of this they often ignore how even established franchises had to face various censorship and media backlash in the 80s and 90s. Nothing did guarantee that a game would be de facto successful with millions of sales. Were they to make a game they'd crumble from the first negative reviews since they are so pampered.

 

[SolidJungle]

And woman out there who like sexy female character design in video games and even like to cosplay as them. Each people have different taste, what else is new. All people have to do is play what they like and don't play what they don't like. We have plenty of games with non sexy character designs. There is room for both, there is no need one of them completely disappear in face of the earth.

I guess that's true. Hopefully more people will think about this when talking about Battlefield V

 

[InterMusketeer]

Frankly, I don't care. Someone else not liking content that I like doesn't matter to me. I agree that someone not liking something would probably mean that they're fine with it not existing. But.... so? That doesn't mean they want to take it from me.

Being fine with something not existing is different from not being fine with something existing. The latter IS wanting to take things away.

Okay, but that second statement doesn't concern me until someone takes an active step in removing candy bars with peanuts. If I like Peanut M&Ms best (I do) and come across 4 bowls with different types of M&Ms, I might come out and say "damn I wish all of these bowls were Peanut M&Ms" but I'm not going to dump out the other bowls.

To take this a step further, someone may even be like "hey, here are some regular M&Ms" and I'd say "no thanks, I don't like those. More Peanut M&Ms would have been nice but whatever". And we all go on with our days.

Well, the analogy was limited in the first place because there's no social or political aspect to peanuts.

Someone simply thinking something is a problem doesn't really scare me.

I'd say the same, if there weren't some very obvious signs that comapnies start listening when people complain about stuff that isn't actually a problem. Sony's alleged new policy enforcing censorship on devs is a good example. That didn't just emerge out of thin air.

Inability to buy content scares me. And inability to express ideas scares me.

I don't think saying "we don't need thing anymore" is just expressing an idea.

 

[OverIt]

And woman out there who like sexy female character design in video games and even like to cosplay as them. Each people have different taste, what else is new. All people have to do is play what they like and don't play what they don't like. We have plenty of games with non sexy character designs. There is room for both, there is no need one of them completely disappear in face of the earth.

Its is the weirdest thing, feminists both promote women being pornstars and hate them at the same time.

 

[Cosmogony]

You're conflating things. Sexualization doesn't mean that sex or lust is bad in an of itself. In this context the issue is the prevalence of sexual objectification.

No.
That is an extremely disingenuous take.
People who argue that showing cleavage or otherwise emphasizing any erogenous zone is tantamount to sexual objectification are in fact implicitly communicating that sex and lust are indeed reprehensible.

If I were to pay someone a compliment, such as "You're very bright", or "You're kind", no one in his right mind would accuse me of trying to reduce the individual to an IQ object, or a Kindness object. No one would point the finger at me and denounce my attempts at IQ objectification or Kindness objectification. Praising someone for feature X is by no means the same as implying their worth is tied exclusively or even primarily to said feature.

Now, if you were to replace IQ or Kindness for sex appeal, s in "You're sexy", the only way for the same flawed rationale to look somehow more convincing would be for sex or lust to be deemed less than moral. There is no other way about it. So, no, the very concept of sexualization requires a sanctimonious judgement on sex and lust.

And we have confirmation of that in this very thread.

If someone is using the term wrong then either educate them or don't engage.

I prefer to ask what the individual means by the term.
Evidently, I object to the term altogether.

I would argue that if you're already being represented, and have plenty of options, then you really can't say what it would mean to someone to not be represented.

You missed my point completely.
I stand by my comment that the concept of representation is fraudulent in and of itself.

If a minority group says "I'd sure like to read about a [minority] superhero" then what is the response you'd give them?

"Write one yourself."

You have no rights over the creative output of others and you are not owed anything. This applies universally and equally to minorities, majorities, no matter from which sociological point of view you've decide to slice the cake.

You shouldn't care about that because you're focused on an arbitrary characteristic that doesn't impact the story".

Who are you to say that someone shouldn't want that?

I did not say people shouldn't want X. It's fine by me. They can go on wanting X, Y and Z, for all I care. But having a minority background warrants no rights over the creativity of others. Neither does having a majority background. No one is owed anything.

I'm sure plenty of minorities consume all kinds of fiction with various main characters, but if someone said "yeah I read about plenty of straight, white guys, but an occasional gay black women would be nice"

And why would it be nice?
Why is it seeing myself on the page via vicarious actions, by proxy, so important that I would delude myself into thinking I'd have any kind of special rights over the creativity of others?
No!

And if they do feel that' strongly about being represented, what's stopping them from picking up a keyboard and writing the stories they want written?

Stories, fiction, are not reality. Failure to understand the basic distinction leads to several problems, one of which, of course, is the absurdity known as representation. Because, evidently, your base assumption is that representation is meaningful. I say a character is a character, a fictional individual, not a representative of billions of people.

I guess I don't see an issue if someone wants to make that comic.

Neither do I.
Just don't go around acting like your minority or majority background grants you any kind of rights over other people's creativity.
It does not.

 

[Cactuarman]

Being fine with something not existing is different from not being fine with something existing. The latter IS wanting to take things away.

My ultimate point is that just because someone voices an issue with something doesn't mean they're always coming to get said thing. To me, "not being fine with something" does not equal "wanting to take it away". But we may just have to agree to disagree.

I'd say the same, if there weren't some very obvious signs that comapnies start listening when people complain about stuff that isn't actually a problem. Sony's alleged new policy enforcing censorship on devs is a good example. That didn't just emerge out of thin air.

You're right. People make a noise and company may or may not bend - episodes of South Park, movie releases, inappropriate commercials, FCC fines, Nintendo's censorship in the 90s, Sony's censorship now, certain books, etc etc. Examples of censorship are all over the place across industries.

But again, I don't think everyone voicing a desire to see fewer damsels in distress is also advocating for Sony to ban or censor a certain game. Sony isn't really going to touch the big games like Grand Theft Auto that have big marketing and PR budgets, but with smaller and more niche titles they're trying to pinpoint certain things that may ruffle some feathers so that they don't have to then spend PR time and money defending them when they're out. That's my take anyway.

The unfortunate thing is that no one really knows how big of a backlash Sony would get if they just let DOAX3 just come out with that stupid Black Fan or whatever. Because they've already censored it. My guess though is that if Scarlet sells way better on Xbox and Switch then they'll get the message. As we've both said, vote with your wallet.

I don't think saying "we don't need thing anymore" is just expressing an idea.

I mean, I'd argue that saying that is an example of literally expressing an idea. Taking steps to remove something from existence is when it crosses over into more than an idea. The latter concerns me and the former does not.

Maybe I'm being naive but I try not to presume that someone not getting why something exists means that they also want to remove it. I don't understand why 50 Shades of Grey is a thing (and frankly I'm not all that convinced it's a good thing), but I'm not going start burning books. Maybe a 50 Shades fan can help enlighten me.

 

[Cosmogony]

Lol. Could you back pedal any harder?

You wanted me to show you evidence. I've given you links which provide plenty of evidence and support for my position that most women don't want to be reduced to wank fodder for lonely twats. It's all there in those articles. I'm not providing you fucking cliff notes. If you can't be bothered to read them thatv's your problem pal.

I know what you said.
You're on record.
You're not providing me fucking cliff notes, because fucking nothing is pretty much what you have, as I will show conclusively. Worry not. I am addressing your puerile attempts at arguing your shoddy case. Know, though, that the tactic of dumping a barrage of loosely related lengthy articles is not particularly new, nor particularly effective.

I tend to think an explanation in one's own words is preferable to regurgitation, but that's not an absolute rule, especially when ""to objects for lonely twats to wank over" appears to be the apex of your self-expression abilities.

Here we go:

1, https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/...buse/201203/the-sexualization-women-and-girls

(…)
in 2006 the American Psychological Association (APA) formed a task force for the purpose of examining the subject and they proposed that any one of these four components of sexualization sets it apart from healthy sexuality:
• A person's value comes only from his or her appeal or behavior, to the exclusion of other characteristics;

Fallacious.
Praising someone for a specific attribute is in no way the same thing as asserting the person's value only or even primarily comes from said attribute. Praising someone for his or her sexiness is no more an objectification than praising someone for his or her kindness, his or her intelligence.

• A person is held to a standard that equates physical attractiveness (narrowly defined) with being sexy;

Falalcious.
Unless the author is arguing for an objective standard for attractiveness, anyone has the right to hold their own standards and judge by them. Additionally, arousal is involuntary. If someone only responds favourably to people who he finds physically attractive, his response is not subject to change after he's been given a lengthy pep talk. It's hard-wired.
Attraction is not a choice.

• A person is made into a thing for others' sexual use, rather than seen as a person with the capacity for independent action and decision making; and/or

Falalcious.
Nothing in the depiction of a fictional character with exaggerated features communicates the author views real-life persons or even whole genders that could be loosely and arbitrarily associated with it as "objects for sexual use" alone.

• Sexuality is inappropriately imposed upon a person. (This is especially relevant when children are imbued with adult sexuality)

Misapplied.
Surely this does not apply to mainstream videogames. There is hardly any explicit depiction of sexuality, let alone of sexual misconduct involving minors. The only way for this to hold any relevance would be after a redefinition of the term sexuality to include practically everything and thus to render it meaningless.


2. http://msmagazine.com/blog/2016/01/04/toxic-culture-101-understanding-the-sexualization-of-women/

Everyone suffers from this constant emphasis on appearance as it encourages people to separate the body from the individual as a person.

Assertion.
Evidence needed.

All women are affected,

Unsupported assertion.

regardless of whether they fit conventional standards of beauty, and whether images depict women as active or passive. In any case, the body becomes an object that exists for sexual pleasure, leading to self-objectification. Self-objectification, in turn, is connected to eating disorders, depression and sexual dysfunction.

Fallacious and unsupported.
Intercourse , the sexual act itself is a highly focused experience, revolving around a narrow band of one's existence. That does not in and of itself negate or deny all of the other relevant dimensions at play the rest of the time. In the same way, the depiction of sexuality is also a highly focused representation. To be effective, it must temporarily occlude other aspects of life, but that is the nature of the medium, of representation itself. It's not per se a depreciation of other facets of life.

Evolution over millions of years has selected for attractiveness and it revolves around physical appeal, for sound reasons. Mankind can credit sexual selection as one of the key reasons for its success as a species on planet earth.

Researchers have found a link between male partners’ pornography use and women’s lower self esteem, higher negative affect and relationship anxiety.

Is it causation?

3. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/scienc...istory-of-female-sexualization-in-video-games

Lynch found that sexualization rose to a peak in the 1995 and then declined, but games still objectify female characters more than male characters and feature them more often in secondary roles.

The ill-defined evil of objectification is in decline, but the quantitative analysis is unsurprisingly absent from the article.
Generally speaking, it is a fact males are objectively more apt at demanding physical activity, around which a significant proportion of videogames revolve. It is therefore only natural the choice of protagonist would reflect that.

4. https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2007/02/sexualization.aspx

Sexualization

was defined by the task force as occurring when a person's value comes only from her/his sexual appeal or behavior, to the exclusion of other characteristics, and when a person is sexually objectified, e.g., made into a thing for another's sexual use

Great. Now all they have to do is show the depiction of fictional characters, with the usual distinctive characteristics amounts to sexualization of women, in the precise way they have chosen to define the term. Until they do that, the study can be disregarded.

The article does not provide a single piece of empirical numerical evidence in support of the relevant claims. Therefore, it can be dispensed with without hesitation.

5. https://www.unicefusa.org/stories/not-object-sexualization-and-exploitation-women-and-girls/30361

Examining various media, the findings proved girls are portrayed in a sexual manner more often than boys;

Did you even bother to read the article you're citing in your defence?
Because this is a rehash of the same article already referenced, cited without explaining the methodology or providing comprehensive data to support its many relevant assertions.

But the underlying message in the quote above is that sex is tainted, that sex is bad. If that were not the case, having women portrayed n in a sexual manner more often than men would be as innocuous as having women portrayed in a humoristic manner more often than men.

6. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/03/five-women-objectified-wendy-davis-jessica-valenti

From catcalls to discrimination at work, we asked women to tell us about the first time they felt objectified for being female – and the last time

I couldn't ask for a clearer case of Leading The Witness.

“You ain’t going to go get pregnant any time soon, are ya?”

Irrespective of what one might think of the question, it would take an especially lost mind to miss its point, in the context of a job interview, that is. And It has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, which is representation/objectification in video games.

When Donald Trump made sexist criticisms of Megyn Kelly, the Fox News reporter

The author does not know what sexism entails.
The author is trying to equate a compliment with objectification, which is sheer unabridged lunacy.

Then he said, as he walked behind me, “and I know that pussy is good, too.”
I whipped around and told him not to talk to me that way, and my friends and I sped off as he apologized. I had been catcalled before, but that was the first time a man made me so aware of my body and all of its parts, made me feel ashamed for having them, made me want to just disappear into thin air. In that moment I didn’t feel like a person; just flesh with no face, no name. I also somehow knew that it wouldn’t be the last time I would be made to feel that way.

There's a great deal to object to here, but I'll stick with the most relevant key point. The attempt to equate the depiction of a character in a video game to cat calling a minor in real-life is simply preposterous.

“Haiti’s no place for a single woman right now.

The sheer lunacy of the Guardian. That the above is being portrayed as sexism and sexism equated with objectification. So the corollary is that big breasts in videogame characters are as harmful to society at large as a piece of advice most likely offered with the best of intentions.


And this is all you had? This is your empirical evidence? Your sound reasoning? Six whole articles full of hot air? Take the time you've been given to cool off to reflect and come up with something better than six links to inanity. You were given a chance to present a stronger more eloquent case. You declined.
You don't have one.

 

[Aenima]

Im ok with sexualisation of both male and female characters, just dont do it for underaged characters, it feels wrong.

 

[InterMusketeer]

But again, I don't think everyone voicing a desire to see fewer damsels in distress is also advocating for Sony to ban or censor a certain game.

Well, a few people just saying they don't like a thing is enough to get it banned or censored at this point, so it doesn't matter what their ultimate goal was when they posted their opinion on a forum or twitter or whatever. The very fact games have been censored for this reason is enough to push back against anyone who opposes certain types of content. It's the only way to show people care for these games too.

The unfortunate thing is that no one really knows how big of a backlash Sony would get if they just let DOAX3 just come out with that stupid Black Fan or whatever. Because they've already censored it. My guess though is that if Scarlet sells way better on Xbox and Switch then they'll get the message. As we've both said, vote with your wallet.

That might work for that particular game, but what if the game's console exclusive? There's plenty of examples one could give where simply voting with your wallet doesn't work. Not buying a censored game could send any kind of messages to the platform holder, developer and/or publisher. Maybe there's just no demand for that game in the west anymore. Maybe sales increased or remained level because of the censorship.

I mean, I'd argue that saying that is an example of literally expressing an idea. Taking steps to remove something from existence is when it crosses over into more than an idea. The latter concerns me and the former does not.

"X is shit and shouldn't exist" is not an idea. It's an opinion on an idea that already existed. An idea takes actual thought and a spark of creativity. An opinion is simply your reaction to something. At least that's how I see it.

Maybe I'm being naive but I try not to presume that someone not getting why something exists means that they also want to remove it.

Yes, that is just you being naive because the removal or outright denial of content has already happened multiple times now.

 

[Cactuarman]

No.
That is an extremely disingenuous take.
People who argue that showing cleavage or otherwise emphasizing any erogenous zone is tantamount to sexual objectification are in fact implicitly communicating that sex and lust are indeed reprehensible.

There is some hyperbole here. People who argue for less cleavage are absolutely not implicitly communicating that sex and lust are reprehensible. It depends on context and the person.

I personally thought that Quiet in MGS5 was a bit eye-rolling and looked out of place. That doesn't mean that I turned the game off and burned my copy of DOA Xtreme. Nor do I care if someone else was super into Quiet.

If I were to pay someone a compliment, such as "You're very bright", or "You're kind", no one in his right mind would accuse me of trying to reduce the individual to an IQ object, or a Kindness object. No one would point the finger at me and denounce my attempts at IQ objectification or Kindness objectification. Praising someone for feature X is by no means the same as implying their worth is tied exclusively or even primarily to said feature.

Now, if you were to replace IQ or Kindness for sex appeal, s in "You're sexy", the only way for the same flawed rationale to look somehow more convincing would be for sex or lust to be deemed less than moral. There is no other way about it. So, no, the very concept of sexualization requires a sanctimonious judgement on sex and lust.

And we have confirmation of that in this very thread.

I don't understand your point here - yeah, saying "you're kind" and "you're sexy" are very different. And they can be delivered in very different ways.

In your example you've left out any sort of context. I could absolutely say "you're kind" to a stranger in such a way that would be weird.

You missed my point completely.
I stand by my comment that the concept of representation is fraudulent in and of itself.

I don't understand what this means: "the concept of representation is fraudulent". There either is representation or there is not. Something is represented or it is not. There are additional qualities you could give like "poor representation" or whatever, but the concept of representation being a fraud doesn't make sense.

Are you saying something can't be represented? Thinking that something doesn't matter doesn't then make that thing a fraud.

"Write one yourself."

Okay. They can. Doesn't mean that they can't also want something.

"McDonald's should sell spicy nuggets"
"Go make them"

I know I can go make them. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be nice for McDonald's to sell them so that I don't have to go to the grocery store. Mine also might be terrible, so there a quality element as well.

You have no rights over the creative output of others and you are not owed anything. This applies universally and equally to minorities, majorities, no matter from which sociological point of view you've decide to slice the cake.

Ultimately I agree with you but in this context it seems a little extreme. And I mean, where our money goes kind of drives what games get made and supported.

The example you were responding to was "I'd sure like to read about a [minority] superhero". So you coming back with "you have no rights over the creative output of others and are now owed anything" seems comically severe.

I did not say people shouldn't want X. It's fine by me. They can go on wanting X, Y and Z, for all I care. But having a minority background warrants no rights over the creativity of others. Neither does having a majority background. No one is owed anything.

I don't know who is taking away these rights but I wouldn't support that.

And why would it be nice?
Why is it seeing myself on the page via vicarious actions, by proxy, so important that I would delude myself into thinking I'd have any kind of special rights over the creativity of others?
No!

Just because you don't understand why it would be nice doesn't mean it wouldn't be nice for someone. YOU don't have the right to tell them what they may or may not find valuable.

And if they do feel that' strongly about being represented, what's stopping them from picking up a keyboard and writing the stories they want written?

Stories, fiction, are not reality. Failure to understand the basic distinction leads to several problems, one of which, of course, is the absurdity known as representation. Because, evidently, your base assumption is that representation is meaningful. I say a character is a character, a fictional individual, not a representative of billions of people.

Telling an author to write a story featuring a gay man isn't the same as a gay man looking for a story featuring a gay man. You keep conflating wanting to be represented with people, I guess, bossing around content creators instead of making their own content.

And my base assumption ISN'T an assumption - representation IS meaningful to some. Period. It's not up to you to say that it doesn't matter. It may not matter to you, and that's okay. But you then also don't get to tell someone that they shouldn't worry about it or that it's "fraudulent".

Just don't go around acting like your minority or majority background grants you any kind of rights over other people's creativity.
It does not.

You keep going back to people being granted rights over other people's creativity. And I'm 100% with you on that. In this conversation though I guess I just don't understand where that is happening.

Sony censoring maybe but that's not a representation issue. So I don't really know how it fits.

Edit: An extra word

 

[IchII3D]

I asked my wife about this topic expecting to have a deep discussion about it and her response was "no" so it wasn't a very long conversation.

 

[Cosmogony]

There is some hyperbole here.

You assert, yet do not explain yourself.
That makes it harder for me to comment on, though, unfortunately, easier to dismiss .

People who argue for less cleavage are absolutely not implicitly communicating that sex

They are, even if unconsciously, as I've explained. That's the corollary of their argument. Again, you simply asserting the contrary doesn't move the discussion forward.

I personally thought that Quiet in MGS5 was a bit eye-rolling and looked out of place.

Did it not occur to you the juxtaposition of eroticism and guns blazing summed up the tone of the game, what made it singular tone-wise?

Regardless, the issue is hardly ever framed as a question of preference or tackiness or conyness. It is always framed as an ethical imperative. Every single time.

That doesn't mean that I turned the game off and burned my copy of DOA Xtreme. Nor do I care if someone else was super into Quiet.

I'm sure you will acknowledge a significant portion of those arguing against so-called objectification do so not on the basis of stylistic distaste for what's being depicted, but on the grounds of some moral reasoning against it. If it were simply a matter of taste, then you'd have yours, I'd have mine, and we'd leave it at that. There'd be little to nothing to argue over.

I don't understand your point here - yeah, saying "you're kind" and "you're sexy" are very different. And they can be delivered in very different ways.

This is the third time in a row now you assert without explaining yourself. Again, my point is that the worldview that says "You're sexy" and "You're kind" are two fundamentally different statements - which is what you have just said in unequivocal but unexplained terms - is dependant upon a sex-negative take on reality. Both sentences boil down to "I am complementing you on your attribute X". X marks the difference.
Kindness is valued, sexiness is not.

In your example you've left out any sort of context. I could absolutely say "you're kind" to a stranger in such a way that would be weird.

And the reverse could also be true. So the key difference is neither context, nor nuance, but object.

I don't understand what this means: "the concept of representation is fraudulent"

It means that the idea that, in general, characters should primarily be viewed not as fictional individuals created for specific storytelling purposes but rather as representatives of genders, classes, ethnicities, sexual orientations or any other arbitrary group they can be pigeonholed into, groups numbering in the millions, is fraudulent. It is first and foremost an unsubstantiated notion but it is also fraudulent in so much as it falsely distorts the key goals of fiction. I'm not the first person to point out that it is also terribly detrimental to the craft as it necessarily leads to shallow characters.

If one sees Representation, in the intersectional sense, for what it is, then the notion that having characters with this or that characteristic would be inherently good, a good on its own, reveals itself to be fraudulent.

There either is representation or there is not.

You're being disingenuous here.
I am objecting to the intersectional sense in which the term is applied in these discussions.

Something is represented or it is not. There are additional qualities you could give like "poor representation" or whatever, but the concept of representation being a fraud doesn't make sense.

I an saying characters should be viewed as fictional devices, not as represenattives of real-life groups of people numbering in the billions.

Are you saying something can't be represented? Thinking that something doesn't matter doesn't then make that thing a fraud.

Already addressed.

Okay. They can. Doesn't mean that they can't also want something.

I'm sorry, but you seem bent on being disingenuous.
No one is denying them the right to want whatever their heart desires. The usual case against objectification suggests certain groups have God-given rights to be depicted in a certain way, or not be depicted in a certain way, the claim made on moral and ethical grounds. It is presented as much more than merely individuals craving some screen time.

"McDonald's should sell spicy nuggets"
"Go make them"

Absolutely.
McDonalds alone has the right to decide what they will serve you.

I know I can go make them. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be nice for McDonald's to sell them so that I don't have to go to the grocery store. Mine also might be terrible, so there a quality element as well.

Mocdonalds owes you nothing. There is no ethical reason that would persuade Mcdonalds to sell you spicy nuggets, which is how the anti-objectification campaigners tend to frame the issue, not as a matter of taste or personal preference.

Ultimately I agree with you but in this context it seems a little extreme.

Why?
You are not owed a book, a play, a character. No group is owed 5-minutes of screen time just because they see themselves as the oppressed or the opressor group of the week.

And I mean, where our money goes kind of drives what games get made and supported.

Great. So the majority will buy games where supposedly they see themselves represented, while the various minorities will likely fail to elevate the IPs featuring characters with their background above break even.
You want to paly the representation game, really?

The example you were responding to was "I'd sure like to read about a [minority] superhero". So you coming back with "you have no rights over the creative output of others and are now owed anything" seems comically severe.

You keep sidestepping the issue. It's hardly ever framed as preference, but rather as a moral obligation. It's framed as "A minority superhero by Marvel ought to come out, and if it doesn't we can infer this or that tenebrous flaw ending in -ist about the industry, the company or the author"

Just because you don't understand why it would be nice doesn't mean it wouldn't be nice for someone.

Just because someone claims it would be nice, doesn't mean it would. But , for the nth time, it's not about personal preferences, but about the clain that the omission somehow betrays moral inadequacy.

YOU don't have the right to tell them what they may or may not find valuable.

Again,

And for the third time now, that's not what I'm doing.
It should be abundantly clear by now.

Telling an author to write a story featuring a gay man isn't the same as a gay man looking for a story featuring a gay man. You keep conflating wanting to be represented with people, I guess, bossing around content creators instead of making their own content.

Morality can be defined as a series of Ought statements. When someone argues for the immorality of certain groups not having been represented in a certain fashion, they are arguing those groups ought to be represented through that lens, and that authors ought to depict them accordingly. Not authors would be well-advised, not that it would be nice for authors to, but that authors have the moral obligation to do it.

It just so happens anti-objectification campaigners lack the philosophical arsenal and can't make the rational philosophical case, but such shortcoming doesn't stop them. They usually can't even defend objective morality,

And my base assumption ISN'T an assumption - representation IS meaningful to some. Period.

It is.
But that doesn't give them the right to demand representation from authors. Thye may want books to feature certain kinds of protagonists, but that in and of itelf carries no weight. So they proceed to circumvent this limitation, by framing the issue as a moral question, which they then try to leverage.

It's not up to you to say that it doesn't matter.

I'm sure you're well acquainted with the basic objective/subjective distinction. You seem to be making the poorly defended case that as long as someone in a remote island finds it important, then it is important. Just remember that the very idea that the matter is subjective is also an opinion, and thus subject to debate.

Regardless, no matter how ardently someone feels about it, that doesn't give him any rights to make demands, or wage misguided moral obligations in order to get what he wants, especially by encroaching on the creative rights of others. .

It may not matter to you, and that's okay. But you then also don't get to tell someone that they shouldn't worry about it or that it's "fraudulent".

That's not my point and neither is how most anti-objectification campoaigners argue.

 

[OverIt]

Representing sexuality in a bizarre manner for comedy is not objectification, it isnt arousing or in any way sexual. One the IGN forums I had an argument over Pyra in Xenoblade Chronicles 2, how her only sexual scenes were used in awkward comedy scenes and were not intended to arouse. I think Bayonetta is objectification because it is intended to arouse the viewer despite the lore.

 

[RedVIper]

Too big to quote

I believe you're either lost in this argument or being disingenuous, I'll assume it's the former.

You're trying to defend a group of people, those who simply dislike something, when no one is arguing against them, there's simply nothing to argue with.

The group people are arguing against are the people who do not simply dislike something but wanted it changed.

Using your example, the statement: "I dislike Quiet's outfit" is substantially different from the statement "Quiet's outfit should be changed".

The world should not cater to my wants and needs, would I like if it did? Sure, but why should what I want supersede what other people want.

I think @Cosmogony has explained it very clearly.

 

[Dr. Claus]

I believe you're either lost in this argument or being disingenuous, I'll assume it's the former.

You're trying to defend a group of people, those who simply dislike something, when no one is arguing against them, there's simply nothing to argue with.

The group people are arguing against are the people who do not simply dislike something but wanted it changed.

Using your example, the statement: "I dislike Quiet's outfit" is substantially different from the statement "Quiet's outfit should be changed".

The world should not cater to my wants and needs, would I like if it did? Sure, but why should what I want supersede what other people want.

I think @Cosmogony has explained it very clearly.

Exactly! These folks would never have purchased the game to begin with, at least not to any discernible degree that it would have made a difference.

 

[The Chairman]

Pretty sure that the representation discussion isn't what sunk Andromeda

I think it is the reason, just look at the character creation of this game.

 

[Renoir]

I did LoL for real at this post.

 

[petran79]

I believe you're either lost in this argument or being disingenuous, I'll assume it's the former.

You're trying to defend a group of people, those who simply dislike something, when no one is arguing against them, there's simply nothing to argue with.

The group people are arguing against are the people who do not simply dislike something but wanted it changed.

Using your example, the statement: "I dislike Quiet's outfit" is substantially different from the statement "Quiet's outfit should be changed".

The world should not cater to my wants and needs, would I like if it did? Sure, but why should what I want supersede what other people want.

I think @Cosmogony has explained it very clearly.

This is another issue because many buyers buy the game and demand that some things should be immediately changed or removed.

I mean you do not buy revealing clothes at a store and demand that the clerk should patch things over. You either add it yourself or give it to a non-affiliated tailor. Or go buy something else.

 

[Cactuarman]

Well, a few people just saying they don't like a thing is enough to get it banned or censored at this point, so it doesn't matter what their ultimate goal was when they posted their opinion on a forum or twitter or whatever. The very fact games have been censored for this reason is enough to push back against anyone who opposes certain types of content. It's the only way to show people care for these games too.

I mostly agree with you. Speaking up and supporting devs and publishers who are doing the right thing is definitely valuable and should be done. To be clear though my point was never to do nothing in general. It was the value of recognizing and discussing the different groups within the conversation. Some groups are useless to engage with, some are not.

What I do disagree with is that their ultimate goal doesn't matter. I would say it does. If the way they deliver their message isn't clear then yeah, that can be a problem. But I'm saying that we shouldn't assume everyone has the same goal.

We might just be at an impasse there.

That might work for that particular game, but what if the game's console exclusive? There's plenty of examples one could give where simply voting with your wallet doesn't work. Not buying a censored game could send any kind of messages to the platform holder, developer and/or publisher. Maybe there's just no demand for that game in the west anymore. Maybe sales increased or remained level because of the censorship.

Yeah I mean a smaller group voting with their wallet may not counter a larger group voting with their wallet. If sales increased or remained level because of the censorship, then unfortunately the market has spoken. I don't always agree with that but there are plenty of times when I've unfortunately has to wait for, or really search for, an uncut version of a film for instance. I think we'd both agree that this is unfortunate, but I don't think the losses outweigh the value of voting with your wallet.

"X is shit and shouldn't exist" is not an idea. It's an opinion on an idea that already existed. An idea takes actual thought and a spark of creativity. An opinion is simply your reaction to something. At least that's how I see it.

Ah, I see what you mean. I think that's a fair distinction. I don't know if the definition of idea implies creativity or "actual" thought any more or less than an opinion - I think both can be well thought out or poorly thought out - but I see what you mean.

Yes, that is just you being naive because the removal or outright denial of content has already happened multiple times now.

I know it happens. Naive was in reference to the volume of people that may not like something in a video game, but then also want it banned.

 

[Cactuarman]

You assert, yet do not explain yourself.
That makes it harder for me to comment on, though, unfortunately, easier to dismiss .

The next sentence in that paragraph explains why I think you're being hyperbolic.

They are, even if unconsciously, as I've explained. That's the corollary of their argument. Again, you simply asserting the contrary doesn't move the discussion forward.

I disagree because it all comes back to context. Dressing a certain way in a business meeting is different than dressing for the beach. Telling someone to cover up cleavage in certain situations does not equate to "implicitly communicating that sex and lust are reprehensible". I think that statement, and especially "reprehensible", is hyperbolic and an exaggeration.

Did it not occur to you the juxtaposition of eroticism and guns blazing summed up the tone of the game, what made it singular tone-wise?

Not sure if we're talking themes or tones - I guess your right here if the tonal goal MGSV was eroticism and guns blazing. An erotic action game I suppose? I didn't pick up on it but that could be on me. Silent Hill 2 for example would be something that I think deals with eroticism and sexuality in a much more cohesive way, as it's woven throughout the design and story.

Regardless, the issue is hardly ever framed as a question of preference or tackiness or conyness. It is always framed as an ethical imperative. Every single time.

In this instance I'd say that "every single time" is hyperbolic because you're saying that it's "every single time" and not even "most of the time" or "sometimes".

I'm sure you will acknowledge a significant portion of those arguing against so-called objectification do so not on the basis of stylistic distaste for what's being depicted, but on the grounds of some moral reasoning against it. If it were simply a matter of taste, then you'd have yours, I'd have mine, and we'd leave it at that. There'd be little to nothing to argue over.

I would acknowledged that and I think you're right.

This is the third time in a row now you assert without explaining yourself. Again, my point is that the worldview that says "You're sexy" and "You're kind" are two fundamentally different statements - which is what you have just said in unequivocal but unexplained terms - is dependant upon a sex-negative take on reality. Both sentences boil down to "I am complementing you on your attribute X". X marks the difference.
Kindness is valued, sexiness is not.

To be fair, we both assert things ("every single time" right above this for example). And yeah, X marks a difference. Other differences though include who is saying it. Why isn't being said. Who it's being said to. What is the situation?

Me telling a coworker after a presentation that she was "sexy" would probably not go over very well. However if that coworker was also my wife and I later said "you were really sexy up there" then that's a different story.

And the reverse could also be true. So the key difference is neither context, nor nuance, but object.

The object of a compliment IS context. For the reasons I mentioned above.

It means that the idea that, in general, characters should primarily be viewed not as fictional individuals created for specific storytelling purposes but rather as representatives of genders, classes, ethnicities, sexual orientations or any other arbitrary group they can be pigeonholed into, groups numbering in the millions, is fraudulent. It is first and foremost an unsubstantiated notion but it is also fraudulent in so much as it falsely distorts the key goals of fiction. I'm not the first person to point out that it is also terribly detrimental to the craft as it necessarily leads to shallow characters.

If one sees Representation, in the intersectional sense, for what it is, then the notion that having characters with this or that characteristic would be inherently good, a good on its own, reveals itself to be fraudulent.

The key goals of ALL fiction? I would agree that forcing representation into a story about Geralt of Rivia or Kratos doesn't make sense. But some fiction is created with ambiguous narrators.

I would not want forced representation, but I don't believe I ever argued that. Just that representation can be impactful. I love The Road, and I imagine that revisiting it when I have a child may mean it hits me even harder.

You're being disingenuous here.
I am objecting to the intersectional sense in which the term is applied in these discussions.

Unintentionally disingenuous I guess. You said "representation is fraudulent" and I didn't understand what that meant.

I an saying characters should be viewed as fictional devices, not as represenattives of real-life groups of people numbering in the billions.

"Should" is what concerns me with your comment - it seems to be up to the creator.

I'm sorry, but you seem bent on being disingenuous.
No one is denying them the right to want whatever their heart desires. The usual case against objectification suggests certain groups have God-given rights to be depicted in a certain way, or not be depicted in a certain way, the claim made on moral and ethical grounds. It is presented as much more than merely individuals craving some screen time.

My point wasn't that some groups weren't claiming moral or ethical superiority. My point what that there are different groups within this discussion. And that assuming a "usual case" (a claim) was a simplistic way to approach the argument.

Mocdonalds owes you nothing. There is no ethical reason that would persuade Mcdonalds to sell you spicy nuggets, which is how the anti-objectification campaigners tend to frame the issue, not as a matter of taste or personal preference.

I never said they did. I just said that it's understandable to want that thing to be more convenient to acquire. I agree that McDonald's can decide whatever it wants.

Why?
You are not owed a book, a play, a character. No group is owed 5-minutes of screen time just because they see themselves as the oppressed or the opressor group of the week.

Agreed. Again, just saying that wanting something that is already available is nicer than having to make it yourself.

Great. So the majority will buy games where supposedly they see themselves represented, while the various minorities will likely fail to elevate the IPs featuring characters with their background above break even.
You want to paly the representation game, really?

Not sure I totally follow - most of my favorite games over the last couple of years have set protagonists. Did the majority who bought Spider-Man feel that they were represented? God of War? It seems like the really popular games this year don't have much representation.

You keep sidestepping the issue. It's hardly ever framed as preference, but rather as a moral obligation. It's framed as "A minority superhero by Marvel ought to come out, and if it doesn't we can infer this or that tenebrous flaw ending in -ist about the industry, the company or the author"

You may be right. IMO it seems like the preference group is bigger but I very well could be wrong. The size of the groups was never really my main point. But maybe I'm side-stepping again.

Just because someone claims it would be nice, doesn't mean it would. But , for the nth time, it's not about personal preferences, but about the clain that the omission somehow betrays moral inadequacy.

My comments never started from a place of me agreeing with the moral inadequacy crowd.

And for the third time now, that's not what I'm doing.
It should be abundantly clear by now.

In the comment above you literally said "just because someone claims it would be nice, doesn't mean it would" which was a response to me saying "Just because you don't understand why it would be nice doesn't mean it wouldn't be nice for someone."

Maybe I'm having a hard time following.

Morality can be defined as a series of Ought statements. When someone argues for the immorality of certain groups not having been represented in a certain fashion, they are arguing those groups ought to be represented through that lens, and that authors ought to depict them accordingly. Not authors would be well-advised, not that it would be nice for authors to, but that authors have the moral obligation to do it.

It just so happens anti-objectification campaigners lack the philosophical arsenal and can't make the rational philosophical case, but such shortcoming doesn't stop them. They usually can't even defend objective morality,

You're really saying something like this then getting on my case for making claims?

It is.
But that doesn't give them the right to demand representation from authors. Thye may want books to feature certain kinds of protagonists, but that in and of itelf carries no weight. So they proceed to circumvent this limitation, by framing the issue as a moral question, which they then try to leverage.

You're strawmanning me a bit throughout this, or assuming more than I'm saying - I never said anyone had rights to demand anything from authors. I know it happens, but again I wasn't really disputing that. I was saying that not everyone who wants to critique something is also demanding censorship.

I'm sure you're well acquainted with the basic objective/subjective distinction. You seem to be making the poorly defended case that as long as someone in a remote island finds it important, then it is important. Just remember that the very idea that the matter is subjective is also an opinion, and thus subject to debate.

Regardless, no matter how ardently someone feels about it, that doesn't give him any rights to make demands, or wage misguided moral obligations in order to get what he wants, especially by encroaching on the creative rights of others.

I said important TO THEM, and that you can't say something doesn't matter to someone else. I'm not arguing this with this hypothetical person over their preferences.

So again, I agree with your point about making demands.

 

[PSFan]

the other day i was at a friend's birthday party, she was projecting Supergirl on the wall, and we were all watching it. the first thing to happen when she gets to Earth is two truckers attempt to rape her, wtf? this is problem across all media. honestly i don't think games are nearly as bad as movies or tv. videogames have ratings on them, young children can't buy them, or at least it's not as easy as turning on the TV to Law and Order: SVU and seeing someone get raped and murdered. i have no problems w sexualization in games.

Was that the 80s movie Supergirl or the current TV series? I don't recall that happening in any episode of the TV series and I've watched every one so far. The show has become awful though, they should change the name to SJWgirl instead. It's completely agenda driven, and there are no good guys that are white men, they are all bad guys and villains. I probably won't watch it much longer.

 

[Cosmogony]

The next sentence in that paragraph explains why I think you're being hyperbolic.



I disagree because it all comes back to context. Dressing a certain way in a business meeting is different than dressing for the beach. Telling someone to cover up cleavage in certain situations does not equate to "implicitly communicating that sex and lust are reprehensible". I think that statement, and especially "reprehensible", is hyperbolic and an exaggeration.



Not sure if we're talking themes or tones - I guess your right here if the tonal goal MGSV was eroticism and guns blazing. An erotic action game I suppose? I didn't pick up on it but that could be on me. Silent Hill 2 for example would be something that I think deals with eroticism and sexuality in a much more cohesive way, as it's woven throughout the design and story.



In this instance I'd say that "every single time" is hyperbolic because you're saying that it's "every single time" and not even "most of the time" or "sometimes".



I would acknowledged that and I think you're right.



To be fair, we both assert things ("every single time" right above this for example). And yeah, X marks a difference. Other differences though include who is saying it. Why isn't being said. Who it's being said to. What is the situation?

Me telling a coworker after a presentation that she was "sexy" would probably not go over very well. However if that coworker was also my wife and I later said "you were really sexy up there" then that's a different story.



The object of a compliment IS context. For the reasons I mentioned above.



The key goals of ALL fiction? I would agree that forcing representation into a story about Geralt of Rivia or Kratos doesn't make sense. But some fiction is created with ambiguous narrators.

I would not want forced representation, but I don't believe I ever argued that. Just that representation can be impactful. I love The Road, and I imagine that revisiting it when I have a child may mean it hits me even harder.



Unintentionally disingenuous I guess. You said "representation is fraudulent" and I didn't understand what that meant.



"Should" is what concerns me with your comment - it seems to be up to the creator.



My point wasn't that some groups weren't claiming moral or ethical superiority. My point what that there are different groups within this discussion. And that assuming a "usual case" (a claim) was a simplistic way to approach the argument.



I never said they did. I just said that it's understandable to want that thing to be more convenient to acquire. I agree that McDonald's can decide whatever it wants.



Agreed. Again, just saying that wanting something that is already available is nicer than having to make it yourself.



Not sure I totally follow - most of my favorite games over the last couple of years have set protagonists. Did the majority who bought Spider-Man feel that they were represented? God of War? It seems like the really popular games this year don't have much representation.



You may be right. IMO it seems like the preference group is bigger but I very well could be wrong. The size of the groups was never really my main point. But maybe I'm side-stepping again.



My comments never started from a place of me agreeing with the moral inadequacy crowd.



In the comment above you literally said "just because someone claims it would be nice, doesn't mean it would" which was a response to me saying "Just because you don't understand why it would be nice doesn't mean it wouldn't be nice for someone."

Maybe I'm having a hard time following.



You're really saying something like this then getting on my case for making claims?



You're strawmanning me a bit throughout this, or assuming more than I'm saying - I never said anyone had rights to demand anything from authors. I know it happens, but again I wasn't really disputing that. I was saying that not everyone who wants to critique something is also demanding censorship.



I said important TO THEM, and that you can't say something doesn't matter to someone else. I'm not arguing this with this hypothetical person over their preferences.

So again, I agree with your point about making demands.

Good post Cactuarman.
I'm rather pressed for time now but I'll try to do it justice soon.

 

[Cosmogony]

Good post, Cactuarman.

I disagree because it all comes back to context. Dressing a certain way in a business meeting is different than dressing for the beach. Telling someone to cover up cleavage in certain situations does not equate to "implicitly communicating that sex and lust are reprehensible". I think that statement, and especially "reprehensible", is hyperbolic and an exaggeration.

Your analogy refers to social conventions grounded in the well-meaning desire not to offend anyone and which only apply to the public and semi-private spheres. That destroys any potential parallels with the act of playing a videogame in the reclusion of your living room.

Strolling down the avenue with nothing on has the potential to offend pedestrians who do not wish to be graced with such view but need to pass by nonetheless.

You have to willingly buy the game and willingly expose yourself to it to even open up the possibility to be offended. There is nothing else you might need to do that requires you to play that videogame along the way.

So again, when is less cleavage appropriate, according to you, and how would you frame the suggestion? As your personal opinion? As a moral assessment? As a matter of taste, of social decorum?

Not sure if we're talking themes or tones - I guess your right here if the tonal goal MGSV was eroticism and guns blazing. An erotic action game I suppose? I didn't pick up on it but that could be on me. Silent Hill 2 for example would be something that I think deals with eroticism and sexuality in a much more cohesive way, as it's woven throughout the design and story.

Yet all of the above amounts to you evaluating how successful the game's stylistic choices were. In the context of the present discussion, I have nothing to object. But please bear in mind that's not how the anti-objectification campaigners tackle the matter.

In this instance I'd say that "every single time" is hyperbolic because you're saying that it's "every single time" and not even "most of the time" or "sometimes".

By definition, these people attack the topic this way. By their definition reducing someone to a sex object - I reject their take - is bad. But would they feel the same way about reducing someone to, say, a charity object?

Me telling a coworker after a presentation that she was "sexy" would probably not go over very well.

Would it be immoral though?

If the parallel you're trying to draw is that sexiness is not immoral per se, but sometimes inappropriate, I would agree. But, again, this is a stylistic take, not a moral pronouncement. The two are very different.

The object of a compliment IS context. For the reasons I mentioned above.

The point is those activists seldom miss an opportunity to depreciate sexuality. I'm still waiting for their case as to why it ought to be done,

The key goals of ALL fiction? I would agree that forcing representation into a story about Geralt of Rivia or Kratos doesn't make sense. But some fiction is created with ambiguous narrators.

Yes. I would rephrase my claim by including a few caveats.

Could you point me to a piece of fiction which successfully handles Representation, in the intersectional sense? Please share why you think it's successful.

"Should" is what concerns me with your comment - it seems to be up to the creator.

Yes. This would be one of the caveats I would have included.

But ponder this: what sort of character a given protagonist would have to be in order to qualify as an adequate representative of all latinos, or of all pansexuals, or of all queer people? Do the members of these groups share anything more than the trait - ethnicity, sexuality or other - by which they have been divided up? If your answer is yes, them your opinion is that membership of these groups is the defining characteristic of such individuals, billions of them, which in essence is the intersectional worldview. In this sense, representation would carry deep consequences, namely that any flaw you'd imbue the protagonist with would also constitute an indictment on the whole group, an indictment on billions of people.

Doesn't this ring a bell? The view that billions of people of a certain complexion or a certain ethnic background or of a certain sexual orientation share other specific traits as well?
Alternatively, you could deprive your protagonist of any flaws, just to avoid the problem and then create a bigger one: flat, insipid cardboard fiction.

My point wasn't that some groups weren't claiming moral or ethical superiority. My point what that there are different groups within this discussion. And that assuming a "usual case" (a claim) was a simplistic way to approach the argument.

Fair enough.
My question then, which I've asked before, is how would you frame your objections? Specifically, how would you define objectification and why and when is it objectionable?

Not sure I totally follow - most of my favorite games over the last couple of years have set protagonists. Did the majority who bought Spider-Man feel that they were represented? God of War? It seems like the really popular games this year don't have much representation.

My point is that if representation were the driving impetus behind purchase, AAA videogame companies would be better-off aiming at representation of the majority. You might argue indie developers would be well-advised to seek niche markets, and play the representation of minorities game, but it seems to me the anti-objectification pressure is consistently put upon mainstream studios whose big budgets require an audience to match.

You're strawmanning me a bit throughout this, or assuming more than I'm saying - I never said anyone had rights to demand anything from authors. I know it happens, but again I wasn't really disputing that. I was saying that not everyone who wants to critique something is also demanding censorship

.

The terms of the debate must be clear. I'm up for discussing stylistic choices.

I said important TO THEM, and that you can't say something doesn't matter to someone else. I'm not arguing this with this hypothetical person over their preferences.

Until they can provide motives that transcend what their heart yearns for, there is no reason besides limitless and therefore hollow empathy for a developer to follow though on their wants.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

I've seen this chart repeated in a number of places, but there are so many bizarre assumptions baked into the typical interpretation offered.

It can easily, for instance, be that the shift towards widespread personal computers brought along a perfectly natural trend towards autodidactic hobbyism (as it did for me, a kid in the 80s who programmed on his early Tandy machine for fun, with no one having prompted, taught, or inspired me as a role model to do so) fueling a hacker-style career path,

You didn't get the argument I tried to make with that chart.
The societal conception of computers and video games was so male focussed that it was "perfectly natural" for boys and men to be drawn towards that. But the way this new tech was presented and received made it much less likely for girls and women to take an interest in it.

When the home PCs hit, it is simply false to assert that advertising instigated the wave of young men taking a hobby interest. These very early PCs typically came with programming guides and expected the user to dive in and start playing with it at length to make things happen

Exactly, and at the time there was the strong stereotype that "thats nothing for girls, too complex".

If anything, this sudden domination of men in the field around the time that self-direction became possible only gives an even stronger indication that indeed, given tools put on the table and leaving everything to motivation, it is men who will always overwhelmingly (though not exclusively) gravitate towards this kind of thing and master it. And there's nothing unjust about that reality.

You've internalized a societal stereotype.
Try thinking about it like this:
Do you consider yourself a rational person? Would you say your opinions are logically sound and withstand basic scientific scrutiny? I would guess so.
Now think about the assumption I quoted here and think about what its based on, how bias and subjectivity might affect opinion/conclusion. If you had to make this argument in a scientific way, could you argue this point?
Then consider what you are arguing against here. The reason why you've seen this chart a couple of times and similar interpretations a couple of times is because media effect theory is rather widespread. The entire advertisement industry is relying on the fact that images, even if we know they are not real, affect our view of reality and thereby our tastes, cravings, interests, feelings towards things and ultimately our decision making.
Using the science behind this very successful industry to explain behavioral phenomenons in society is something very logical and not something you can discredit with a personal example and a contrary opinion based on stereotypes.

 

[Kaby]

Because T R I G G E R E D !

 

[captainraincoat]

My mrs dont give a shit....you can flip the argument and say the same thing about big masculine males in game....but that would be dismissive...sexist and bigoted according to some crazy areas of the net.

 

[Spukc]

My mrs dont give a shit....you can flip the argument and say the same thing about big masculine males in game....but that would be dismissive...sexist and bigoted according to some crazy areas of the net.

resetera ?

 

[captainraincoat]

resetera ?

Well it is their most popular thread and also the single highest thread for bans....the whole thread is a facepalm

 

[Spukc]

Well it is their most popular thread and also the single highest thread for bans....the whole thread is a facepalm

 

[BBamith]

In accordance with some sociologists' opinion, although women 's legal right has been equal to men's, they usually think they need more respect to themselves

 

[Athena~]

In accordance with some sociologists' opinion, although women 's legal right has been equal to men's, they usually think they need more respect to themselves

Or maybe we want the same respect men get? There is no equality between us in terms of respect we get and you know it.

 

[The Mad Draklor]

Or maybe we want the same respect men get? There is no equality between us in terms of respect we get and you know it.

Define "we". There's a difference between making a personal claim and hoping for us to just take your word for it vs. taking the time to research and see if there is a re-occurring theme.

 

[Athena~]

Define "we". There's a difference between making a personal claim and hoping for us to just take your word for it vs. taking the time to research and see if there is a re-occurring theme.

Statistically women get sexual harassed more than men do. Is this fact not enough to convince you?

 

[Cosmogony]

Or maybe we want the same respect men get?

I reject the idea that sexualized fictional characters are a disrespect to women.

No one elected you the spokesperson of all women. Millions of women did not email you telling you what they want.

You want to be respected. Fine. It's a legitimate desire. But others don't owe anything and are not bound by your wants and needs and don't have to behave in ways you might describe as respectful, especially given how you seem unable to explain yourself connivingly.

You will have to persuade them and earn their respect, just like everyone else.

There is no equality between us in terms of respect we get and you know it.

Please don't try to tell others what they know.

Men as whole get more respect than women as whole?
Provide the evidence that''s the case.

 

[Athena~]

I reject the idea that sexualized fictional characters are a disrespect to women.

I have no problem with this statement.

I was discussing complete different things with the other poster.

 

[The Mad Draklor]

Statistically women get sexual harassed more than men do. Is this fact not enough to convince you?

I didn't make a stance. I asked for evidence. You are again making the same mistake, i.e. make a claim, but do not supplement it with evidence. What was the methodology being used? What measures did the study take to eliminate sampling bias and statistical noise? What was the p-value of the statistical test that was used?

 

[Athena~]

Men as whole get more respect than women as whole?
Provide the evidence that''s the case

How come women get lower wages than men for the same jobs they do?

 

[lukilladog]

Oh c´mon that has been debunked like a million times. Too easy... Why white people get lower wages than asians?, or indians in the UK?... it´s not discrimination against white people.

As for sexual harassment, men usually don´t find it as molesting so you wont get real numbers there.