Sexism in gaming: how much arse is too much arse?

skarmachild wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:

Death's Head wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:

Death's Head wrote:Yes, but this is just how things are unfortunately. Sex is added to everything. Look at movies from the 50s compared to today, no actress was expected to get their kit off. Look at music, imagine a song in the 50s or 60s mentioning sex or an LP with the word "strawberry float" on. Why should we expect any other form of entertainment to not pander to the same market?

Sex sells.

Common misconception: sexism isn't just about sex. It's about gender. Sure, "sex sells" and that's a mantra that's every bit as true today as it was in the 50s, but this doesn't cover aspects of sexism such as the under-representation of women in games. Check the graphs in the mic article: female protags are few and far between, although as Skippy says that is improving. Remember The Last Night, set in a world where "feminism won" and where equality and plenty is seen as a negative.

I can't think of many games where time is spent sexing up the male characters. Sex sells, but not the male sex variety.

Yeah but "sex sells" has never, ever applied to men when talking about advertising in general. Also, it looks like you're responding to something I wasn't trying to say. I was trying to say that your reply was all about sexualisation. Sexism is about more than that.

what? have you ever picked up any sort of trash magazine and the amount of nude beefcake guys selling perfume, or guys in boxers with giant bulges advertising something?!

Yeah, I was wrong on this. But again, the audience for those adverts are not women, generally. It's not sexual objectification in this context, it's aspirational (ie it's not "Phwoar look at the package on him" but "Jeez, I want to be like that guy!")


...

Lotus wrote:There are a few things that seem to get included under the umbrella of 'sexism', so here's how I see them:

Body Image
Not sure this is really a valid concern...I see some people claim that characters like Lara Croft, Lightning, females in fighting games etc perpetuate unrealistic body images. Maybe they are unrealistic, but so are most things in videogames. Same goes for male characters and their often massive builds, which seem a lot more unrealistic/unattainable than the female characters. I'm not sure that the number of people being influenced by this is that big, or that people see a character in a game and think "I should look like that!". I don't think every character should be of normal proportions, as that's part of what makes videogames different and fun, being able to exaggerate and distort, etc. If there is an issue, it seems to me to be balanced between male and female characters.

Again, I really think the key issue here is as above "Objectification vs Aspiration." When male characters are buff and fit, they are rarely objectified. When women are fit and buff, they almost always are. Also you're coming at this from the perspective of a man, ie someone who has not been exposed to an entire life of magazines telling you how to look and dress and which body types are culturally and societally acceptable. Of course you don't look at Marcus Fenix and say "wow I should look like that" but imagine if you're a girl who only sees women with trim arses and big tits all the time, with both these features shoved in the gamer's face. Not only does it promote these images as the norm, what is that telling you about gaming culture? You're being told it's not for you.

Gender Imbalance
Another claim is that there are more male protagonists than female protagonists. I'm sure there are, but I'm not convinced it's an issue. I don't play the game for the protagonist, and it doesn't bother me whether I'm playing as a man, a woman, an animal, a spaceship or a square. When I was a child/teenager and probably at my most easily-influenced, was I think about the sex of the protagonist, or aspiring to be like them? No, and I don't imagine many kids these days are either. I played, and do play, plenty of games with female leads, and it made/makes no difference to anything. Could there be more female leads? Sure, who cares, I don't see it as an issue at all though. If little girls are crying out for more female leads to aspire to be like or be inspired by (does that really happen?) then sure, do it.

Again, and as Karl points out, this is because you are catered to already. Imagine if all games had always had a majority female protagonist. In that situation, would you still not be convinced it's an issue?

Plot tropes
There used to be a lot of 'save the princess' games, which again has been portrayed as a bad thing and sexist. Do these kind of games exist anymore? I'm not sure that they do, and any examples must be few and far between.

It's not just overarching plot, it's character roles. Women are generally subservient to men in these games, be they helpers or rescue targets.

Sex/titilation
I can think of some games that definitely focus on sexualising women, or if they don't focus on it, certainly have elements of it. It's not really necessary, and I can't think of any games that have the same focus on men, so sure, it's an issue, but I think those games are in a minority. They could disappear and it wouldn't bother me, can't think of an example where it adds anything positive to the game.

Again, you're talking about overt sexualisation such as House Party. What about the new Tomb Raider games that revel in shoving her arse in your face, or FFXV where the first significant woman you meet is a mechanic's assistant in a stripper outfit, or Quiet in MGSV or 2B in Nier. It's nice that you (as a man) don't think that this is a problem, but these games are not in the minority

In summary I think there are some issues that could be looked at and addressed, but I'm not convinced that there's a major problem. I definitely disagree with the original assertion that most games are sexist.

And I still disagree. I think you're coming at this from a position of privilege, as I am, but you are choosing to pass on these issues of because they don't affect you directly. I cannot speak for women gamers, but having read a lot of opinion and writings on the topic the people actually affected by this do not, generally, share your views.

Tafdolphin wrote:Yeah, I was wrong on this. But again, the audience for those adverts are not women, generally. It's not sexual objectification in this context, it's aspirational (ie it's not "Phwoar look at the package on him" but "Jeez, I want to be like that guy!")

Seriously? I don't have time to do a thorough survey of the advertising landscape but are you honestly trying to say that the majority of adverts featuring scantily clad or sexualised interpretations of men are not aimed at women?

Also plenty of the adverts featuring "idealised" interpretations of the female form are aimed at women as well - does that make these "aspirational"(and therefore okay)?

Tafdolphin wrote:Again, I really think the key issue here is as above "Objectification vs Aspiration." When male characters are buff and fit, they are rarely objectified. When women are fit and buff, they almost always are. Also you're coming at this from the perspective of a man, ie someone who has not been exposed to an entire life of magazines telling you how to look and dress and which body types are culturally and societally acceptable. Of course you don't look at Marcus Fenix and say "wow I should look like that" but imagine if you're a girl who only sees women with trim arses and big tits all the time, with both these features shoved in the gamer's face. Not only does it promote these images as the norm, what is that telling you about gaming culture? You're being told it's not for you.

It seems like you are trying to have your cake and eat it here. You say that if a man is buff in a game then it's aspirational and that's a good/acceptable thing, but if a woman is fit then it's objectification and therefore bad. But then also go on to say that giving woman an "aspirational" image is also bad? So whether a female depiction is either aspirational or objectified it doesn't matter because it's all bad - whereas it's fine for unrealistic "aspirational" male characters to exist for some reason, and men can never be objectified so therefore that's never a problem!

Again, you're talking about overt sexualisation such as House Party. What about the new Tomb Raider games that revel in shoving her arse in your face, or FFXV where the first significant woman you meet is a mechanic's assistant in a stripper outfit, or Quiet in MGSV or 2B in Nier. It's nice that you (as a man) don't think that this is a problem, but these games are not in the minority

Not sure what House Party is.

I played all of the Tomb Raider reboot and genuinely can't remember any instance of LC being sexualised at all (i mean, if you felt that way i dunno man, that's pretty strawberry floated up considering the tone of the game) , at least not in the way she was in her PSX days in advertisements. And that was all some big joke cause they made her boobies too big and stuck with it.

FFXV's mechanic (Cindy?) is how the Japanese developers see Western women, she's meant to be the token-American (complete with Southern accent) and thus dresses like a parody. I agree it's a silly outfit but Square Enix has a love for that digital thong...
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-q2D-_AxM3LA/T ... 53566.jpeg

Quiet in MGSV ... I havent played MGS V but I am familiar with the whole "breathing through her skin" or whatever. I mean, didnt the developer say he just did that so he could have a sexy babe in his game? By itself that isn't sexist, that's just... putting a sexy women in a game and then putting in a reason as an afterthought. Maybe the dude is a sexist, but by itself I dont see how - people like to see attractive people in media.

Can we not have sexy guys and girls in games without a reason? What about those classic 'match the number games to reveal naked girl'?

I think this view of 'sexist' is being too loosely applied to everything. I've been playing as girl characters since I was a kid and so have my sisters, so it's never been a problem for us. Phantasy star, metroid, time gal, flying squadron kero bnlahbalhnh.

On the topic of gender representation, traditionally it's been men who develop video games (im talking about the early days of game dev mind) - and that's just a fact. So most dev's like to put themselves in this fantasy, and if most devs are men then theyre likely to put themselves in as a character.

I think once every game has a female protagonist we can move onto 'are videogames racist' or 'where is my gender neutral option' or something.

Anyway, thats my ridiculous loose thoughts for the day, im out

Jenuall wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:Yeah, I was wrong on this. But again, the audience for those adverts are not women, generally. It's not sexual objectification in this context, it's aspirational (ie it's not "Phwoar look at the package on him" but "Jeez, I want to be like that guy!")

Seriously? I don't have time to do a thorough survey of the advertising landscape but are you honestly trying to say that the majority of adverts featuring scantily clad or sexualised interpretations of men are not aimed at women?

All? No. The majority? Yes.

EDIT: I could be wrong here. This is a really interesting article that provides evidence for my assertion that male objectification is often seen as a joke, but also that there is a lot of ads aimed at women with shirtless men.

http://www.adweek.com/brand-marketing/h ... ng-152925/

Also plenty of the adverts featuring "idealised" interpretations of the female form are aimed at women as well - does that make these "aspirational"(and therefore okay)?

Tafdolphin wrote:Again, I really think the key issue here is as above "Objectification vs Aspiration." When male characters are buff and fit, they are rarely objectified. When women are fit and buff, they almost always are. Also you're coming at this from the perspective of a man, ie someone who has not been exposed to an entire life of magazines telling you how to look and dress and which body types are culturally and societally acceptable. Of course you don't look at Marcus Fenix and say "wow I should look like that" but imagine if you're a girl who only sees women with trim arses and big tits all the time, with both these features shoved in the gamer's face. Not only does it promote these images as the norm, what is that telling you about gaming culture? You're being told it's not for you.

It seems like you are trying to have your cake and eat it here. You say that if a man is buff in a game then it's aspirational and that's a good/acceptable thing, but if a woman is fit then it's objectification and therefore bad. But then also go on to say that giving woman an "aspirational" image is also bad? So whether a female depiction is either aspirational or objectified it doesn't matter because it's all bad - whereas it's fine for unrealistic "aspirational" male characters to exist for some reason, and men can never be objectified so therefore that's never a problem!

I did not say it's good. It is not good. At all. The difference is the audience. Idealised men in games are not there for a female audience (generally; see Dream Daddy). If a woman in a game it attractive, that is not in of itself objectification but more often than not if a woman in a game is attractive she will be objectified. See all my examples above.

Aspirational is not the same across sexes. As men, we are not told how we "should" look. In fact we are told the opposite. Look at all the TV and Movie characters who are average looking men with stunning wives: King of Queens, Curb Your Enthusiasm, etc. Also, and I'm not saying he's average, but 50 year old Tom Cruise's last cinematic love interest was half his age. We are told that it doesn't matter what we look like or how old we are. Women are told the opposite and they are told repeatedly across all media.

Certainly men can be objectified. Look at the Diet Coke ad previously mentioned. Is this good? Not necessarily but you have to view this in context: we are not living in a matriarchy. We are living in a society that was created and codified and majority still ruled by men. Objectification of men is a novelty, a jape, an exception*. Objectification of women is the norm.

You are viewing these terms, objectification and aspirational, as if the genders are culturally and socially equal. It's better than it was, but unfortunately they are not.

*So says society, these are not my view. To be clear.

skarmachild wrote:I played all of the Tomb Raider reboot and genuinely can't remember any instance of LC being sexualised at all (i mean, if you felt that way i dunno man, that's pretty strawberry floated up considering the tone of the game) , at least not in the way she was in her PSX days in advertisements. And that was all some big joke cause they made her boobies too big and stuck with it.

And yes, I know he's a comedian and yes I know he's emphasising these things for comic effect but look at that footage. Her ass is front and centre, she's wearing a skimpy top and her body is leered over by the camera to no end (that crawling sequence!).

As for the rest of your comments, I don't think there's anything there worth responding to in all honesty. Your thoughts seem to be a list of excuses as to why games are sexist (because they're developed by men, because Japan, what's wrong with looking at sexy people) which I suppose actually supports my argument that they are so, thanks?

Tafdolphin wrote:

Jenuall wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:Yeah, I was wrong on this. But again, the audience for those adverts are not women, generally. It's not sexual objectification in this context, it's aspirational (ie it's not "Phwoar look at the package on him" but "Jeez, I want to be like that guy!")

Seriously? I don't have time to do a thorough survey of the advertising landscape but are you honestly trying to say that the majority of adverts featuring scantily clad or sexualised interpretations of men are not aimed at women?

All? No. The majority? Yes,

Also plenty of the adverts featuring "idealised" interpretations of the female form are aimed at women as well - does that make these "aspirational"(and therefore okay)?

Nope, a fact the ASA now agrees with.

Okay - mixed messages here. You say that aspirational is okay for men: "Jeez, I want to be like that guy!" but not for women? I'm all for a ruling on these things but you have to be consistent in application.

Also I'm still finding it hard to believe that you honestly think that the majority of adverts featuring sexualised male interpretations are aimed at men.

Tafdolphin wrote:

Jenuall wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:Again, I really think the key issue here is as above "Objectification vs Aspiration." When male characters are buff and fit, they are rarely objectified. When women are fit and buff, they almost always are. Also you're coming at this from the perspective of a man, ie someone who has not been exposed to an entire life of magazines telling you how to look and dress and which body types are culturally and societally acceptable. Of course you don't look at Marcus Fenix and say "wow I should look like that" but imagine if you're a girl who only sees women with trim arses and big tits all the time, with both these features shoved in the gamer's face. Not only does it promote these images as the norm, what is that telling you about gaming culture? You're being told it's not for you.

It seems like you are trying to have your cake and eat it here. You say that if a man is buff in a game then it's aspirational and that's a good/acceptable thing, but if a woman is fit then it's objectification and therefore bad. But then also go on to say that giving woman an "aspirational" image is also bad? So whether a female depiction is either aspirational or objectified it doesn't matter because it's all bad - whereas it's fine for unrealistic "aspirational" male characters to exist for some reason, and men can never be objectified so therefore that's never a problem!

I did not say it's good. It is not good. At all. The difference is the audience. Idealised men in games are not there for a female audience. If a woman is fit, that is not in of itself objectification but more often than not if a woman in a game is fit she will be objectified. See all my examples above.

How are they not? In what way (presentationally, tonally, in terms of characterisation etc.) are they different? As I've stated previously I don't think the "chest lingering" scenario which has been described previously is a prevalent as it has been made out to be, and you will see plenty of focus (across all media, not just games) on particular aspects of the male form as well as the female (take the Guardians of the Galaxy example I gave previously).

Ultimately I guess my point is - what qualifies something as being "objectification" versus "aspirational" and why should that line be in any different a place for one gender to the other? Is Ada Wong showing off her legs in Resident Evil objectification or aspirational? Is Chris Redfield showing off his ridiculous arms objectification or aspirational? There is far more to each character than just these individual physical attributes, and both get the opportunity to demonstrate that - if a character is well rounded and their presentation doesn't just focus on their physicality, does that give them a pass on those other instances which, if taken in isolation, could be seen as objectification?

Tafdolphin wrote:Aspirational is not the same across sexes. As men, we are not told how we "should" look. In fact we are told the opposite. Look at all the TV and Movie characters who are average looking men with stunning wives: King of Queens, Curb Your Enthusiasm, etc. Also, and I'm no saying he's average, but 50 yer old Tom Cruise's last cinematic love interest was half his age. We are told that it doesn't matter what we look like. Women are told the opposite. And they are told repeatedly across media.

There are plenty of counter-examples that could be given for this. Look at Sex and The City for your example of 50 year old women attracting the 20 year old men scenario. And I would argue that through print media, TV, movies, games, and now even social media that there is plenty out there telling men how they should look.

Tafdolphin wrote:Certainly men can be objectified. Look at the Diet Coke ad previously mentioned. Is this good? Not necessarily but you have to view this in context: we are not living in a matriarchy. We are living in a society that was created an defined by men. Objectification of men is a novelty, objectification of men is the norm.

You are viewing these terms, objectification and aspirational, as if the genders are culturally and socially equal. It's better than it was, but they are not.

Objectification is a term that refers to the representation, perception and interpretation of the way in which someone is portrayed. For it to be a meaningful concept it's definition surely HAS to exist independent of the current cultural background in which it is used, something is either "objectified" or it is not.

Surely in situations like this equality in gender representation can only be achieved by treating things equally? Although that said equality as a concept is fairly flawed from the outset and doesn't feel like a sensible compass point for us to be heading to as a society - men and women are by definition not equal, one is a man the other is a woman. Able bodied people and disabled people are not equal, old and young, east and west, rich and poor etc. the list goes on. Humanity is not equal and treating everyone "equally" will not of itself lead to healthy outcomes - what we should be trying to be is fair and compassionate.

Just for the record I voted Yes in this poll - games absolutely are sexist and there is a long way to go before that is no longer the case. I am, at least partly, playing Devils advocate here as I think there are further depths to the discussion than some of the black and white responses on here have suggested.

Jenuall wrote:Objectification is a term that refers to the representation, perception and interpretation of the way in which someone is portrayed. For it to be a meaningful concept it's definition surely HAS to exist independent of the current cultural background in which it is used, something is either "objectified" or it is not.

I'm not sure I understand this point. When you break down the concept of objectification and why it's a bad thing, I think it can be summed up as portraying a human being like they are a tool for someone else to use. What an appropriate depiction of a human being is, and what makes someone feel like they are being treated like something inanimate, is clearly dependent on cultural context. That's why some - not all, but some - depictions of women in a sexualised context can be objectifying while the equivalent depiction of a man might be considered 'aspirational' or in some other way empowering.

Tafdolphin

Genuine question, Taf. Do you make your game buying decisions in regards to what you see as sexism and/or the objectification of women in video games?

In other words did you choose not buy Tomb Raider, for example, because the camera focussed on Lara's bum more than you felt was necessary?

Karl wrote:

Jenuall wrote:Objectification is a term that refers to the representation, perception and interpretation of the way in which someone is portrayed. For it to be a meaningful concept it's definition surely HAS to exist independent of the current cultural background in which it is used, something is either "objectified" or it is not.

I'm not sure I understand this point. When you break down the concept of objectification and why it's a bad thing, I think it can be summed up as portraying a human being like they are a tool for someone else to use. What an appropriate depiction of a human being is, and what makes someone feel like they are being treated like something inanimate, is clearly dependent on cultural context. That's why some - not all, but some - depictions of women in a sexualised context can be objectifying while the equivalent depiction of a man might be considered 'aspirational' or in some other way empowering.

I disagree - either you are portraying someone as a tool or you are not, the gender of that person shouldn't alter that fact. Cultural norms may evolve over time and this can I guess have an effect on the "perception" of what is objectifying, what is sexist etc. but it shouldn't alter the underlying reality.

Not a great example I guess but it's on my mind due to the anniversary - take attitudes toward homosexuality. 50 years ago it was a crime and you could be sent to prison for it, over time the level of acceptance has progressed to the point where, whilst still a bigger deal than it should be, in the modern UK most people are not going to attempt to lynch you for coming out. Being gay was never "wrong" - that's the underlying reality of it and is something that can never change, however the level of acceptance and understanding of that reality has changed over time.

But the reason sexuality is linked to objectification is that historically women were (often) sexually 'owned' by men, and that idea still exists in our culture. If we lived in a culture without that history then using a female body to titillate might not be seen as objectifying, but we do.

What we consider to be objectifying might evolve (or even be radically different!) in 50 years. I think that's OK. Why wouldn't it be?

Jenuall wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:

Jenuall wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:Yeah, I was wrong on this. But again, the audience for those adverts are not women, generally. It's not sexual objectification in this context, it's aspirational (ie it's not "Phwoar look at the package on him" but "Jeez, I want to be like that guy!")

Seriously? I don't have time to do a thorough survey of the advertising landscape but are you honestly trying to say that the majority of adverts featuring scantily clad or sexualised interpretations of men are not aimed at women?

All? No. The majority? Yes,

Also plenty of the adverts featuring "idealised" interpretations of the female form are aimed at women as well - does that make these "aspirational"(and therefore okay)?

Nope, a fact the ASA now agrees with.

Okay - mixed messages here. You say that aspirational is okay for men: "Jeez, I want to be like that guy!" but not for women? I'm all for a ruling on these things but you have to be consistent in application.

Also I'm still finding it hard to believe that you honestly think that the majority of adverts featuring sexualised male interpretations are aimed at men.

You're quoting an old version of my post. I admit I'm probably wrong here. But again I have never said that aspirational for men is necessarily OK. More often than not these aspiration stereotypes are white and straight and promote homogenisation of gender norms. The "Jeez" quote is not my view, it's what advertisers who use these images want people to think.

Tafdolphin wrote:

Jenuall wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:Again, I really think the key issue here is as above "Objectification vs Aspiration." When male characters are buff and fit, they are rarely objectified. When women are fit and buff, they almost always are. Also you're coming at this from the perspective of a man, ie someone who has not been exposed to an entire life of magazines telling you how to look and dress and which body types are culturally and societally acceptable. Of course you don't look at Marcus Fenix and say "wow I should look like that" but imagine if you're a girl who only sees women with trim arses and big tits all the time, with both these features shoved in the gamer's face. Not only does it promote these images as the norm, what is that telling you about gaming culture? You're being told it's not for you.

It seems like you are trying to have your cake and eat it here. You say that if a man is buff in a game then it's aspirational and that's a good/acceptable thing, but if a woman is fit then it's objectification and therefore bad. But then also go on to say that giving woman an "aspirational" image is also bad? So whether a female depiction is either aspirational or objectified it doesn't matter because it's all bad - whereas it's fine for unrealistic "aspirational" male characters to exist for some reason, and men can never be objectified so therefore that's never a problem!

I did not say it's good. It is not good. At all. The difference is the audience. Idealised men in games are not there for a female audience. If a woman is fit, that is not in of itself objectification but more often than not if a woman in a game is fit she will be objectified. See all my examples above.

How are they not? In what way (presentationally, tonally, in terms of characterisation etc.) are they different? As I've stated previously I don't think the "chest lingering" scenario which has been described previously is a prevalent as it has been made out to be, and you will see plenty of focus (across all media, not just games) on particular aspects of the male form as well as the female (take the Guardians of the Galaxy example I gave previously).

Ultimately I guess my point is - what qualifies something as being "objectification" versus "aspirational" and why should that line be in any different a place for one gender to the other? Is Ada Wong showing off her legs in Resident Evil objectification or aspirational? Is Chris Redfield showing off his ridiculous arms objectification or aspirational? There is far more to each character than just these individual physical attributes, and both get the opportunity to demonstrate that - if a character is well rounded and their presentation doesn't just focus on their physicality, does that give them a pass on those other instances which, if taken in isolation, could be seen as objectification?

If you believe that Marcus Fenix is a beefcake because MS wanted to pull in the female crowd then...I dunno. I have some bad news for you. Objectification is the promotion of a person as something less than a person, as something to be desired (the actual definition being "the action of degrading someone to the status of a mere object."). This is more commonly associated, across our society, with women. Again, if you doubt this then we may as well stop here. Having Ada Wong show her legs is a continuation of this: why are her legs on show? Is she not a spy in this situation? A spy in a city of the dead? She has no reason to be in that dress apart from appealing to the audience as a sexually desirable object. Marcus Fenix on the other hand is a soldier. He's buff yes, but he wears clothing appropriate to his role and the camera never lingers on features that could be sexualised. That's the difference. Two buff, fit characters, but one is shown as an aspirational hero and the other as a desirable.

Objectified characters aren't necessarily bad characters, lacking in other attributes. 2B in Nier is a complex, layered character but the fact remains that she is dressed in a French Maid's outfit for the majority of the game. There is literally an achievement for trying to look up her skirt 20 times.

Tafdolphin wrote:Aspirational is not the same across sexes. As men, we are not told how we "should" look. In fact we are told the opposite. Look at all the TV and Movie characters who are average looking men with stunning wives: King of Queens, Curb Your Enthusiasm, etc. Also, and I'm no saying he's average, but 50 yer old Tom Cruise's last cinematic love interest was half his age. We are told that it doesn't matter what we look like. Women are told the opposite. And they are told repeatedly across media.

There are plenty of counter-examples that could be given for this. Look at Sex and The City for your example of 50 year old women attracting the 20 year old men scenario. And I would argue that through print media, TV, movies, games, and now even social media that there is plenty out there telling men how they should look.

I'd say that's the one example. And yes, there is evidence that men are increasingly being pressured to comply with gender norms. Women have been under this pressure since the start of western civilization.

Tafdolphin wrote:Certainly men can be objectified. Look at the Diet Coke ad previously mentioned. Is this good? Not necessarily but you have to view this in context: we are not living in a matriarchy. We are living in a society that was created an defined by men. Objectification of men is a novelty, objectification of men is the norm.

You are viewing these terms, objectification and aspirational, as if the genders are culturally and socially equal. It's better than it was, but they are not.

Objectification is a term that refers to the representation, perception and interpretation of the way in which someone is portrayed. For it to be a meaningful concept it's definition surely HAS to exist independent of the current cultural background in which it is used, something is either "objectified" or it is not.

Read the article I linked. It absolutely does not.

Surely in situations like this equality in gender representation can only be achieved by treating things equally? Although that said equality as a concept is fairly flawed from the outset and doesn't feel like a sensible compass point for us to be heading to as a society - men and women are by definition not equal, one is a man the other is a woman. Able bodied people and disabled people are not equal, old and young, east and west, rich and poor etc. the list goes on. Humanity is not equal and treating everyone "equally" will not of itself lead to healthy outcomes - what we should be trying to be is fair and compassionate.

I agree that equality is not always an apt term when viewed on a situation to situation basis, but what I take the term to mean is that women and men should be afforded the same respect and the same relative place in society. Women should not be treated exactly the same way as men but yes they should have the same rights, positions and respect.

Gemini73 wrote:

Tafdolphin

Genuine question, Taf. Do you make your game buying decisions in regards to what you see as sexism and/or the objectification of women in video games?

In other words did you choose not buy Tomb Raider, for example, because the camera focussed on Lara's bum more than you felt was necessary?

Nope. I bought Nier. I've played Tomb Raider. Is this collusion with this practice? Maybe. Maybe I should stop buying games I feel contain overly sexualised charactures of women. As I've argued however, this would pretty much force me out of gaming.

Karl wrote:But the reason sexuality is linked to objectification is that historically women were (often) sexually 'owned' by men, and that idea still exists in our culture. If we lived in a culture without that history then using a female body to titillate might not be seen as objectifying, but we do.

What we consider to be objectifying might evolve (or even be radically different!) in 50 years. I think that's OK. Why wouldn't it be?

Put far more succinctly than me . [Like]

Tafdolphin wrote: but look at that footage. Her ass is front and centre, she's wearing a skimpy top and her body is leered over by the camera to no end (that crawling sequence!).

I am not against the majority of your arguments, but how else would you show a character crawling through a tunnel in a third person game? Anybody the camera is following will have their arse pointing at the camera.

A skimpy top? Sure it's tight, but I am not sure crawling through tight tunnels in a baggy sweatshirt would be the best way of getting through the hazard.

Moggy wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote: but look at that footage. Her ass is front and centre, she's wearing a skimpy top and her body is leered over by the camera to no end (that crawling sequence!).

I am not against the majority of your arguments, but how else would you show a character crawling through a tunnel in a third person game? Anybody the camera is following will have their arse pointing at the camera.

A skimpy top? Sure it's tight, but I am not sure crawling through tight tunnels in a baggy sweatshirt would be the best way of getting through the hazard.

Uncharted managed it. Gears managed it. It wasn't as if they had to have a crawling section there at all. A design decision was made to have a sequence which forces the camera into that position.

Karl wrote:But the reason sexuality is linked to objectification is that historically women were (often) sexually 'owned' by men, and that idea still exists in our culture. If we lived in a culture without that history then using a female body to titillate might not be seen as objectifying, but we do.

What we consider to be objectifying might evolve (or even be radically different!) in 50 years. I think that's OK. Why wouldn't it be?

I'm not suggesting that our ideas of what classifies as objectifying evolving in the course 50 years time is not OK, quite the opposite - I'm suggesting that we shouldn't have to wait 50 years to overcome the intertia of history - a history which as a (relatively speaking ) young member of society I have not contributed to the construction of.

I have kids of both genders and I'm bringing up them as best I can to be individuals who are not defined by the combination of their chromosomes, obviously I'm not so naive that I cannot foresee plenty of challenges that wider society is going to present, particularly for my daughter, but I don't feel I should have to go through my days saying things like "Now hold on there boy child, I can't allow <situation a> with respect to your sister because 50 years ago some men happened to do <thing b>".

I live now in 2017, and I want myself, my children, and the wider society we live in to be the best we can be now.

Tafdolphin wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote: but look at that footage. Her ass is front and centre, she's wearing a skimpy top and her body is leered over by the camera to no end (that crawling sequence!).

I am not against the majority of your arguments, but how else would you show a character crawling through a tunnel in a third person game? Anybody the camera is following will have their arse pointing at the camera.

A skimpy top? Sure it's tight, but I am not sure crawling through tight tunnels in a baggy sweatshirt would be the best way of getting through the hazard.

Uncharted managed it. Gears managed it. It wasn't as if they had to have a crawling section there at all. A design decision was made to have a sequence which forces the camera into that position.

Did it?



I find it odd that you think a solution to "oggling" a virtual character would be to not have a crawling through tunnel section in a game about crawling through old tunnels.

*delete*

I think all of the above is why i tend to prefer racing games; apart from a couple of examples of mid-2000s lad mag/max power-esque games like SRS, Juiced and NFS Pro Street - all you see of anyone is a helmeted head and heavily gloved hands.

Moggy wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote: but look at that footage. Her ass is front and centre, she's wearing a skimpy top and her body is leered over by the camera to no end (that crawling sequence!).

I am not against the majority of your arguments, but how else would you show a character crawling through a tunnel in a third person game? Anybody the camera is following will have their arse pointing at the camera.

A skimpy top? Sure it's tight, but I am not sure crawling through tight tunnels in a baggy sweatshirt would be the best way of getting through the hazard.

Uncharted managed it. Gears managed it. It wasn't as if they had to have a crawling section there at all. A design decision was made to have a sequence which forces the camera into that position.

Did it?

C'ooor! Look at those shapely man buns!

I find it odd that you think a solution to "oggling" a virtual character would be to not have a crawling through tunnel section in a game about crawling through old tunnels.

I can't see that image at work, but I imagine Fenix is not wearing skin tight pants and top there. And I take your point there, but again there's no doubting that camera angle is there to highlight her body. No one forced the developers to do that.

Tafdolphin wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote: but look at that footage. Her ass is front and centre, she's wearing a skimpy top and her body is leered over by the camera to no end (that crawling sequence!).

I am not against the majority of your arguments, but how else would you show a character crawling through a tunnel in a third person game? Anybody the camera is following will have their arse pointing at the camera.

A skimpy top? Sure it's tight, but I am not sure crawling through tight tunnels in a baggy sweatshirt would be the best way of getting through the hazard.

Uncharted managed it. Gears managed it. It wasn't as if they had to have a crawling section there at all. A design decision was made to have a sequence which forces the camera into that position.

Did it?

C'ooor! Look at those shapely man buns!

I find it odd that you think a solution to "oggling" a virtual character would be to not have a crawling through tunnel section in a game about crawling through old tunnels.

I can't see that image at work, but I imagine Fenix is not wearing skin tight pants and top there. And I take your point there, but again there's no doubting that camera angle is there to highlight her body. No one forced the developers to do that.

They look pretty skin tight to me. A lovely shapely manarse.

The camera angle is there because it's standard in a third person game. The camera is behind the character and follows the character around.

But...Ok. I'm not getting my point across.

The devs of this game. Say they have to, have to, have a crawling scene. The rocks are not real. The cave is not real. They can angle the camera literally anywhere. They can, like Deux Ex, have it go first person. They can set the camera outside the tunnel, tracking Lara as she moves. They could have the camera by her head. But they don't. They have a camera that concentrates of a full body shot, positioned just so, so that the heroine's arse is the focus of your gaze. That gooseberry fool isn't accidental. It isn't forced.

Then imagine that the sequence above? It isn't mandatory. So not only is the camera focus not forced, neither is the scene. They made many, many conscious decisions regarding this one tiny sliver of gameplay that led to a leering look at a scantily clad, nubile female body. This design decision is then continued throughout the game, with many more examples of camera positioning and scene setting meant to emphasise her body.

That's my issue with it.