Women's Clothes

[Father Heathen]

What about them?

Seriously?

Like the "virtual prostitute", they too get no characterization and only exist as objects for the player's satisfaction.

 

[Flankerl]

I'm saying, a representation of a body part cannot be objectifying. As the body part is effectively an object.

A representation of a character which reduces the character to said body part, is objectifying.

I have hope that if you read this often enough you will realise how it makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Where did I advocate censorship?

You didn't: it was a statement that we don't need it in regards to the topic. If people think the objectification of women in media is bad today, if we try to censor and filter it then this issue will only become worse as it becomes a "forbidden fruit" and adds incentive to create such material that is suddenly in higher demand and pushing boundaries and limits in some pretty nasty ways once such things go "under the radar."

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Just because it was directed by a woman doesn't mean it is not sexist against women.

My comment there was sarcasm, playing off the general vibe that I'm getting off my Facebook feed. A woman directed it, so anything that's paralleled to the same things that crowd (the people hailing WW as Wonderwomanful) criticizes "isn't the same thing."

The problem is that said prostitutes characters are solely for the purpose of the players satisfaction.

The entire game is there for the sole purpose of a players sordid satisfaction. Furthermore the GTA games do have powerful and/or highly relevant women characters, so to act like every female character in the game is a prostitute is a gross misrepresentation of the social dynamics within the game itself. For every prostitute non-playing-character (NPC) strutting around, there are a dozen NPC male characters - though for GTA it's more accurate to call them caricatures - acting like complete douchy a**es. Point being: just because the NPC is a woman doesn't mean she needs a background story and a huge role in the game - they're NPC's for a reason.

If the prostitutes had any sort of characterization my stance might change.

On the other hand, it's funny you should mention this. In GTA V, if a prostitute likes the character enough (i.e. if they're tipped well and not assaulted,) you can get their phone number and have more personal relations with them. Prostitutes will even remember characters, and call them by name.

All in all, the criticism is still flaccid, though. You're taking one game series, focusing on an NPC profession that has existed since the dawn of man, and acting like it's both the central focus of the game and something that every male player does indiscriminately. What's more, it's pixels on a screen, but the way you make it sound is like they're someone's daughter. They're not. They're not even modeled after real people.

Lastly, your statement about male characters existing only as gun fodder ("what about them?") is very telling to your bias.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Like the "virtual prostitute", they too get no characterization and only exist as objects for the player's satisfaction.

The Fable is good game to further develop this statement. The town character/NPCs have no real purpose except to interact in ways that please you. Bully them, play with them, dance with them, flip them off, slaughter them, or shower them with gifts. They exist for you to have fun with, however you want to have fun with them (including sex). In GTA, prostitutes, police, gangsters, and regular civilians are nothing more than play things to use and abuse.

 

[Father Heathen]

Then the argument could be made that said characters are also objectified. However the role of serialization of males generally functions differently than female objectification because games are generally marketed towards men. Although this is not an absolute.

I don't understand why this is being brought up to me though. Feel I'm hypocritical?

I guess my point is that everything within a game - including it's shallow, one dimensional, single purpose characters, be they eye candy or cannon fodder - exist solely for the purpose of entertainment, and that we can probably trust the general audience to differentiate fiction/fantasy from reality, not allowing the former to shape their perception of the latter, etc.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Lastly, your statement about male characters existing only as gun fodder ("what about them?") is very telling to your bias.

I don't see a bias in acknowledging and pointing out that both women and men characters are portrayed as/used as objects in video games. To say the portrayal of women is a problem, then it logically follows that it is damaging for men as well because it helps to perpetuate the "macho culture" that men are expected to live up to. Or you could take it to reinforce the "culture of me" where the player comes first in anything and everything.
Truth is, the portrayal of the average woman and average man in the average media sucks, and needs improved.

 

[Flankerl]

Seriously?

Like the "virtual prostitute", they too get no characterization and only exist as objects for the player's satisfaction.

Well its simple

This character is not objectified

His powerful muscles and chest... totally not in the centre of the image. He is obviously not objectified! I mean virtually all men look like this.


But this here is literally rape!

So objectifying and let's not forget how no woman looks like this!


I miss the time before the crazy feminazis started caring about video games even though they don't even play them.

 

[Flankerl]

When the entire point of the character is sexual satisfaction for the opposite sex, I would say it's objectifying.

If you fap to prostitutes getting it in GTA, seek help. Go out and do normal people stuff.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

But men aren't? Do I need to pull out the screenshots?

I would actually like you to pull out screenshots of men in games who are only there to be sexy.

Well I sure hope you are against any kind of Dildo or Vibrator. They objectify the Penis to quite an extent.

I'm not sure you understand what "objectification" means. Objectification is when you take a person, but you reduce that person down to purely physical attributes and limit expressions of individuality or personality in order for the viewer to see them as merely physical objects without agency or function beyond "I am here for you to look at me". In short, it's reducing a human being to an object. Dildos and vibrators aren't people - they're literally JUST objects. How, exactly, are they objectifying?

This is why current gen Feminism is insane.
Half naked man in a video game: Okay
Half naked woman in a video game: SEXISM

Vibrators or Dildos: Empowerment!
Artificial Vagina sextoys: Objectifying!

This is a childish oversimplification of the issue. Please learn more about what objectification and feminism actually are.

 

[Father Heathen]

I can understand females not enjoying entertainment aimed at males, and if every single video game was like that there might be a point, but there are a plethora of genres aimed at all sorts of audiences. As with any other form of entertainment, people can simply not buy or play titles that they personally find offensive. Of course, some people have this annoying desire to impose their own morals and sensibilities upon others.

Btw, games where men are scantly clad and sexually objectified do exist (granted those are geared more toward gay males rather than females).

 

[Father Heathen]

 

[Rival]

 

[Twilight Hue]

So I'm confused.

Some feminists (and others) complain when video game producers create women figures wearing scanty clothes or are near nude. They say this is sexualisation and sexism.

However, when people lately complained that Wonder Woman is dressed like a bit of a **** the same feminists turned around and said it's empowering and that women should be able to show off their bodies.

What's the difference?

Talking and doing.

 

[Flankerl]

Oh yes. You're entirely correct. Since a group of pixels is not a person and is only a representation, nothing bad can come out of said representation.

Spoiler: IMAGE

So, of course. Since these are just pixels (and not people).
NOTHING BAD could possibly come out of this representation of people. Right.

1. I have no idea who this is or what is supposed to happen in that picture
2. If you actually equate animated pixels in a video game with photographs or videos of real people.... seek even more help than because of the GTA prostitute thingie.

I would actually like you to pull out screenshots of men in games who are only there to be sexy?

This is a ridiculous premise for many reasons.
1. I am a woman. I find men sexually attractive. Someone like Kratos is somewhat appealing to me. Big shocker...
2. Most women in video games aren't just there to look good. Prostitutes like in GTA are randomly spawned like the good little creeps they are. Its just that they don't try to kill you.

So who are the actual female characters (you know, with a name) who are only there as eye candy?
Because there are kinda more half naked men in video games than women and just because you are not attracted to men...

I'm not sure you understand what "objectification" means. Objectification is when you take a person, but you reduce that person down to purely physical attributes and limit expressions of individuality on personality. It's reducing a human being to an object. Dildos and vibrators aren't people - they're literally JUST objects.

That's the funny thing: Video game characters are neither people nor objects.

This is a childish oversimplification of the issue. Please learn more about what objectification and feminism actually are.

And yet that's the line of reasoning seen since the advent of the Anita.

Oh no you didn't!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I can understand females not enjoying entertainment aimed at males, and if every single video game was like that there might be a point, but there are a plethora of genres aimed at all sorts of audiences. As with any other form of entertainment, people can simply not buy or play titles that they personally find offensive. Of course, some people have this annoying desire to impose their own morals and sensibilities upon others.

So you don't think it's reasonable for a woman who would otherwise enjoy playing, say, a GTA game to be put off by the depiction of women in the game? Whether you accept it or not, the depiction of various groups in games can act as a barrier to people who would otherwise be interested in playing them, and telling such people "Too bad, buy something else" is just dodging the issue. Furthermore, what about the effect such depictions have on the people the games are aggressively sold to? If you have games companies advertising most of their games to young men, and those companies almost uniformly portray women in simple, objectified or passive roles, this can have a knock-on effect on the perception of women among that group. At best, it can act as enablement of negative attitudes towards women and normalizing of misogynistic tendencies - something we've already seen, in a very public fashion, to be a serious problem in the modern gaming community.

I don't think games have to pander to everybody, that's not the point. But I'm also keenly aware that as a white, heterosexual, middle-class male, the gaming industry has been almost exclusively pandering to me all my life, and I've realized in the last few years that this was a great detriment to many, many people who wish to play games but are made uncomfortable or outraged by the marginalization or objectification of their gender, race, culture or sexuality. I want gaming to be something all people feel comfortable doing and sharing, and while I'm also aware that there will always be niches of the industry that will remain elusive to certain sections of society, I would still rather live in a world where those niches ARE niches rather than practically the entirety of the industry.

 

[Flame]

And yet that's the line of reasoning seen since the advent of the Anita.

Anita is as much of a feminist as I am a far-right authoritarian.

 

[Father Heathen]

I don't understand why people get so in a fuss about criticism.
If someone made a pro-nazi game I would call it anti-semetic.
If someone made a blatantly misogynistic game I would call it sexist.
That would be "imposing" my morals onto other people's games.
What's wrong with that exactly?

Before someone responds to this, I don't think that these two examples are the same as what's being discussed. Just explaining why I think "imposing" moral values onto media isn't a bad thing.

Nothing is wrong with that, and criticism isn't imposing, but censorship is. I know you said that you don't advocate censorship, but there are many who do. It's perfectly okay to consider a game (or book, movie, music, T.V. show, etc.) an offensive piece of garbage. The best course of action, simply don't buy/play (or watch, listen, read, etc.) it. As a consumer, "protest" with your wallet. But why worry about what someone else does or does not enjoy? Imagine if you were enjoying a delicious cheeseburger, and then some stranger walks up to you, looks at your burger and says "That's not the least bit healthy!" and then proceeds to slap it right out of your hands, sending it to fall apart upon the floor.

 

[Nietzsche]

Granted she is a comic book character, but why should her body be exposed? It makes no sense. It's the same way in many fantasy games. Women's costumes or "armor" aren't even functional except as eye candy.

In fairness Wonder Woman doesn't really need the armour. She's basically invulnerable.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This is a ridiculous premise for many reasons.
1. I am a woman. I find men sexually attractive. Someone like Kratos is somewhat appealing to me. Big shocker...
2. Most women in video games aren't just there to look good. Prostitutes like in GTA are randomly spawned like the good little creeps they are. Its just that they don't try to kill you.

So when you said you had screenshots of male characters in games that were only there to look sexy, you lied?

So who are the actual female characters (you know, with a name) who are only there as eye candy?

Widening the goal posts. The original suggestion was "Sometimes the women in a game are only there to be sexy". There are plenty of examples of games where this is true - but most of those women aren't often named characters. I can give you lots of examples where, beyond physical attributes, the female characters are incredibly thin on the ground in terms of personality, and these include the entire female cast of Dead or Alive and Soul Calibur (and plenty of other fighting games).

Because there are kinda more half naked men in video games than women and just because you are not attracted to men...

If you think the main concern is purely about modes of dress, you are not capable of debating this subject maturely.

That's the funny thing: Video game characters are neither people nor objects.

They are representations of people. The image you see on a film screen isn't a real person - it's just a projection of light - but it represents people and is supposed to reflect a real person.

And yet that's the line of reasoning seen since the advent of the Anita.

You're not educated enough to tell me that.