Moderator: Content Admins
Article wrote:There are a few things that do not lend themselves well to internet discussion: Race, religion, and, it seems, sexism. I have not seen one meaningful discourse on this topic lately that hasn’t devolved into unproductive pigheadedness from both sides. The muscle arrows are all, “Yerrr, naked chicks are great, stfu, kitchen’s that way.” The floriated clams are all, “Grrr, any man who so much as entertains the idea of a woman as sexy must burn.” Meanwhile, in Shootersville, everyone’s a shallow winner, baby.
What I decided was that these were extreme, probably unattainable ideals – not sexist caricatures. Straight and bisexual males are often visual beings and will ogle attractive females. There is no pussyfooting around this fact, and furthermore there is nothing wrong with it. If it didn’t happen, humanity would stop happening. It’s a biological truism often wrung out to tiresome degrees by all and sundry, no question. Likewise, many a media outlet has decided that the Ultimate Man must be taut and rippling and able to aggressively command each and every situation like a boss.
It must be horrible for some people to realise this, but whether or not that busty female temptress or impossibly chiselled leading man has any meaningful impact on anyone’s worldly perceptions is entirely up to the individual. Maybe that individual is not you, and you have to deal with their perception of you as a man or woman because of it. Hey: Welcome to life since forever. Never forget that the market gives the horde what the horde wants, or it too would cease to exist in a puff of panicky shareholders.
Sexuality is a good thing, and hilariously it is the only reason anyone is even around to complain about it. A man tweets his appreciation of a booth babe’s behind. What, you don’t think a million and one ladies aren’t doing the exact same thing over Alexander Skarsgård’s rock-hard abba-dabbas? I say, awesome. Enjoy being not just a person of the world, but also your own person. Everything solved.
lemoo @ http://www.3fl.net.au/forums wrote:i have to admit, the thought of exploding tampons is exciting lol
caitsith01 wrote:Not in the slightest. I actually find intelligent, complex women more interesting in every sense. And that doesn't mean they can't also be physically attractive, although in my experience the interesting ones don't usually get around in their underwear in public.
Vencha88 wrote:Or the stupid nightie from the "dream" sequences from Velvet Assassin:
The idea of an exotic dancer working as a lethal double agent, using her powers of seduction to extract military secrets from her many lovers fired the popular imagination, set the legend and made Mata Hari an enduring archetype of the femme fatale.
Toby McCasker wrote:In 9 seasons of a show that ran for almost ten years, she was never once utilised for simple titillation. In fact, she was never once presented as anything other than a smart, methodical and super-capable cynic in a power suit.
I thought that was pretty awesome.
Lumen Melano wrote:I think most people are focusing on the wrong thing. It isn't so much about the representation of women in games, it is mainly just the perceived demographic of gamers. As Vencha was saying it is basically that the majority of characters in video games either fulfill a power fantasy or sex fantasy in teenage boys. This is by far the majority of what we have to show for as a medium. It is definitely disappointing.
Because at first I was going to say that this isn't many strong female characters in games until I took a second to think of the "strong" (read: well developed and realised) male characters. It just hasn't happened. Story on the whole in video games is pretty dismal, we don't really have that many to hold up and say that this is what is great about our industry. It is more than likely that we are just too young as a form of entertainment for us to have our "Citizen Kane".
I'm also a little disappointed Toby about the rebuke towards Amara. I would've thought that a response like that would've warranted a thoughtful deconstruction on your view of the sexism in shooters. But it appeared to just be as Clontarf succinctly put, "boys will be boys".
Lumen Melano wrote:I'm also a little disappointed Toby about the rebuke towards Amara. I would've thought that a response like that would've warranted a thoughtful deconstruction on your view of the sexism in shooters. But it appeared to just be as Clontarf succinctly put, "boys will be boys".
Lumen Melano wrote:Okay Asmodai I think you are missing the point of what I am saying. I am not talking about the overt sexualisation of women in games, I am talking about the safe card in developing a blockbuster. When referencing games you should keep it to the genre of these articles, Sitrep is just about FPSes. Referencing casual and puzzle games aren't relevant here.
As far as first person shooters go, how many push the boundaries in the roles that played by the character or NPC's that interact with the character. FPSes are well and truely dominated by male power fantasys and supported by female characters that exist simply to tittilate. Call of Duty you mentions definitely fulfills that role. Which is fine on its own, but the industry simply has no desire to create a game that doesn't have that same sort of Rambo mentality.
Half Life 2 is probably the pinnacle of this. MIT grad gunning down aliens and solving puzzles while being aided by Alex Vance, a strong, good looking women that isn't once used to provide sexual stimulation.
Again I'll iterate it is fine to have your Call of Duty's, but the genre is saturated in them. There is very little compelling coming out of the genre at the moment.
I certainly am not partaking in some rant about removing sex and sexuality from games and FPSes in particular. But I think we can all say that there is just very little depth in the genre as a whole.
Toby McCasker wrote:Conversely the day strippers and rippling male waiters cease to become legitimate avenues of employment will be never, because that is just how it is. For my limited money, this is where the discussion should start - not prior to pretending we aren't all human.
Vencha88 wrote:I think what the article has missed is the different message the images (Buff man, busty girl) send. When you play as super strong-crazy-stamina BF3 guy you're not playing as a female sex fantasy as seen through the eyes of a man, you're playing as a male powerfantasy as seen by a man. But if you hop on to one of the ladies in Dead or Alive, you're then just playing as a male sex fantasy, through the eyes of a man.
You ignore the fact that, in many cases, female characters in games are put forward as objects, while male characters in games are put forward as actors. As you note, the unrealistically buff muscle man is always a man of action, able to control situations. Whereas the unrealistically busty/naked female character is almost always a prize, a seductress, in some way there to hint at being a sexual object to be used or claimed or conquered by the player's character.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests