Oversexualization of females in video games

[DocDoomII]

Oh my Goddess let it go already, they've closed the last thread, there's nothing new to be said.

It might be that if this kind of topics don't get opened, the Anti-WhiteKnight faction would die out of boredom.

 

Edit:

wait, was "goddess" a subtle form of sarcasm over the argument of this thread, or were you just citing the famous manga Aa Megami-sama?

Edited October 22, 2012 by DocDoomII

[Gatt9]

Oh my Goddess let it go already, they've closed the last thread, there's nothing new to be said.

It might be that if this kind of topics don't get opened, the Anti-WhiteKnight faction would die out of boredom.

 

Edit:

wait, was "goddess" a subtle form of sarcasm over the argument of this thread, or were you just citing the famous manga Aa Megami-sama?

 

Probably wiccan.

[Sykid]

[HungryHungryOuroboros]

There is a difference between these two scenarios:

 

-A young man, wanting desperately to seem "sensitive" to women(because women like that, right? RIGHT?!) defends any woman he sees on the internet(regardless of merit) in the mistaken belief that life is a machine that you drop Chivalry Coins into until sex pops out

-Someone thinking chainmail bikinis are dumb, impractical, and pointless titillation that is counter-intuitive in any work that wants to be treated seriously as mature entertainment

 

Now, there's nothing wrong with raw titillation or whatever. It's a part of a lot of entertainment that I personally enjoy. But if you're trying to make a "living world" that makes sense, is internally consistent, and deals seriously with mature themes? It just doesn't fit in the context of armor for warriors. There can be contexts where it's not ridiculous to both try and treat yourself maturely AND have sexual content, but the design of armor meant to be seriously thought of as being viable to protect a human being from conventional weapons is not one of those contexts.

[PsychoBlonde]

I would like to touch this issue because a lot of modern video games tend to oversexualize female characters. Iron bikinis and latex-like outfits don't really enhance the gaming experience in any possible way. Also, it is embarrassing to kill female enemies that are overly exposed (forsworn half naked bandits in skyrim for example). Finally, it can be weird from a setting standpoint.

 

Speak for yourself. Sometimes the fun of gaming is so I can dress my female avatar up in the skimpiest outfit possible and then go punch orcs through walls.

 

I don't think oversexualization is the problem. I think the problem is that it's so ubiquitous there often aren't other options other than Miss Booblicious. I vastly prefer games that offer a big range of variety from the demure to the daring (and even to the silly). And I like it when such options are offered for male characters as well.

 

Granted, I don't expect it to be a HUGE problem with PE because the characters will be TINY. There's only so much you can show (or not show!) on a 1" toon. If you can TELL which ones are female and which are male, I think that's about the best you can expect.

[Gyor]

Oh my Goddess let it go already, they've closed the last thread, there's nothing new to be said.

It might be that if this kind of topics don't get opened, the Anti-WhiteKnight faction would die out of boredom.

 

Edit:

wait, was "goddess" a subtle form of sarcasm over the argument of this thread, or were you just citing the famous manga Aa Megami-sama?

 

Probably wiccan.

 

Lapsed, but yes. Didn't stop believing in the Gods, just in myself.

 

I'm ecletic, not traditional right now I'm focused on Baphomet (no I'm not a Satanist, although I do recognize that some Satanists worship Baphomet as well), as well as philosphical framework to help guide me ethically, spiritually, and in gaining a greater understanding of the universe.

 

Anywho this thread isn't covering any new ground.

[YourVoiceisAmbrosia]

Females having sexually revealing or attractive outfits isn't necessarily sexist. There are women who think other women wearing sexually revealing clothing is empowering in a sense, because it means that women are given full control and freedom to wear whatever they want and do whatever they want with their own bodies.

 

Now, such outfits being practical in, say, a combat situation is a completely different story.

[AgentOrange]

 

This comic is meant to be ironic right? Because the guy in the retarded hat is over-reacting, and is acting like he knows what all women think. And thinks that the fact that he likes "nerdy girls" gives him the rank of grand inquisitor of the white knights. And is treating that other woman like a slave. The message is that they are both pathetic, right?

[Adhin]

What Blondy said, also Forsworn? The dudes where half naked as well. I also think Dragno's Dogma did a good job at that, they let you just kinda go at it however ya wanted, plenty of incredibly covered fully armored women... to running around naked with a g-string on. Though some of the lady cloths a dude couldn't ware (like that g-string) but good bit of it they could do the point of creepily nekked.

 

Ultimately I don't think it'll be an issue for PE.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Adhin

[Sensuki]

dese threads xD

[Badmojo]

Considering the op has not responded or posted anything else seems to support my opinion that this is just a sock puppet of another poster.

 

I suggest closing this thread asap mods and moving it to the off topic forums along with any new threads made in the same vein. It is obvious trolling by a specific group and does nothing but distract from actual PE discussion and divides the community.

 

However, this just shows what has been going on in other websites and why most of us are sick to death of the topic.

[Giantevilhead]

Why do everyone keep making huge generalizations.

 

The problem is not having female characters who are scantily clad or show off their bodies, the problem is when it makes no sense.

 

There's nothing wrong with a female monk who doesn't wear any armor but it makes no sense for a female knight to wear a chain bikini while male knights wear full plate.

 

 

But will this apply to male armor too?

 

(Arnie - what a big sword you have).

 

How many female characters who wear chain bikinis look like bodybuilders or athletes who can beat people up?

 

That's the difference between how men and women are sexualized. When men are sexualized, they are portrayed as being strong and powerful. When women are sexualized, they're portrayed as being vulnerable and submissive. All the male sex fantasies are about the guy being the hero and rescuing the helpless girl but how many female sex fantasies are about a woman rescuing a helpless man?

[Badmojo]

Here they come to save non existing women everywhere.

[bronzepoem]

Oversexualization or unsexualization...Anyway...It's just a trivial problem(IMO).

 

Haven't you seen the concept art of sagani and Cadegund? I think I reall can't associate them with the word "sexual"...

[Giantevilhead]

Here they come to save non existing women everywhere.

 

Yes, because when there are no women around then it's OK to be sexist, just like how it's OK to be racist when there are no minorities around.

[Katrar]

Eroticism in fantasy doesn't belong to one gender, and to even think about condemning it is to reject some of fantasy's most amazingly descriptive, cohesive worlds, some of its most creative artists, and some of the most memorable fantasy stories ever drawn, written, or told.

 

The white knight brigade are fools.

[Giantevilhead]

Eroticism in fantasy doesn't belong to one gender, and to even think about condemning it is to reject some of fantasy's most amazingly descriptive, cohesive worlds, some of its most creative artists, and some of the most memorable fantasy stories ever drawn, written, or told.

 

The white knight brigade are fools.

 

That's a very broad generalization. No one is actually condemning eroticism. They're condemning instances when it makes no sense. Not having non-sensical chain bikinis /= no sexuality or sensuality at all.

[Badmojo]

Here they come to save non existing women everywhere.

 

Yes, because when there are no women around then it's OK to be sexist, just like how it's OK to be racist when there are no minorities around.

 

Sorry, as mentioned in another thread, sexist, misogynist, etc has lost all meaning thanks to the white knights/fems. Its just a shock word used to cause quick emotion gut reactions. No matter what the argument is, the group uses those words like candy to accuse the other side of being sexist/mysogynist/rape supporter..etc. Its right up there with probable cause, no matter what you do or say, your a sexist/mysoganist/rape supporter. Those people who abuse the words are only hurting women in the long run. When someone actually deserves the words, it will be ignored thinking its just the white knight/fem trolls again.

[Badmojo]

Eroticism in fantasy doesn't belong to one gender, and to even think about condemning it is to reject some of fantasy's most amazingly descriptive, cohesive worlds, some of its most creative artists, and some of the most memorable fantasy stories ever drawn, written, or told.

 

The white knight brigade are fools.

 

That's a very broad generalization. No one is actually condemning eroticism. They're condemning instances when it makes no sense. Not having non-sensical chain bikinis /= no sexuality or sensuality at all.

 

oh please, the chain bikinis/boob armour are just the cover stories, every thread like this always degenerates into how women are portrayed, why they are too attractive, why they cannot be exactly like men, why do women have to be treated differently, why is there sex in the game, then it turns to feminists/white knight political debate on the state of feminism, why aren't games designed for women, etc. Its just vitrol of the worst sort. I wish the group who keep bringing these threads up stop being wasting everyone's time and just admit that it has nothing to do with chain mail bikinis or boob armour, but it wants the WHOLE game to be a PC propaganda machine.

 

The worst thing obsidian did was cave to this group with the boob armour debate (I don't believe for a minute the alteration was to make it more realistic), now their boards are getting hammered with this stuff because they won a round.

[Giantevilhead]

Here they come to save non existing women everywhere.

 

Yes, because when there are no women around then it's OK to be sexist, just like how it's OK to be racist when there are no minorities around.

 

Sorry, as mentioned in another thread, sexist, misogynist, etc has lost all meaning thanks to the white knights/fems. Its just a shock word used to cause quick emotion gut reactions. No matter what the argument is, the group uses those words like candy to accuse the other side of being sexist/mysogynist/rape supporter..etc. Its right up there with probable cause, no matter what you do or say, your a sexist/mysoganist/rape supporter. Those people who abuse the words are only hurting women in the long run. When someone actually deserves the words, it will be ignored thinking its just the white knight/fem trolls again.

 

So you're just sidestepping the issue because you don't like the way people are using certain words.

 

Eroticism in fantasy doesn't belong to one gender, and to even think about condemning it is to reject some of fantasy's most amazingly descriptive, cohesive worlds, some of its most creative artists, and some of the most memorable fantasy stories ever drawn, written, or told.

 

The white knight brigade are fools.

 

That's a very broad generalization. No one is actually condemning eroticism. They're condemning instances when it makes no sense. Not having non-sensical chain bikinis /= no sexuality or sensuality at all.

 

oh please, the chain bikinis/boob armour are just the cover stories, every thread like this always degenerates into how women are portrayed, why they are too attractive, why they cannot be exactly like men, why do women have to be treated differently, why is there sex in the game, then it turns to feminists/white knight political debate on the state of feminism, why aren't games designed for women, etc. Its just vitrol of the worst sort. I wish the group who keep bringing these threads up stop being wasting everyone's time and just admit that it has nothing to do with chain mail bikinis or boob armour, but it wants the WHOLE game to be a PC propaganda machine.

 

The worst thing obsidian did was cave to this group with the boob armour debate (I don't believe for a minute the alteration was to make it more realistic), now their boards are getting hammered with this stuff because they won a round.

 

How about you provide some actual evidence? How about you show some posts where people specifically say that there should be no attractive women or that women should be exactly like men. Heck, I've specifically said that there should be women who look like super models or wear scantily clad clothes so long as it makes sense and you called me a "white knight."

 

All I've seen are broad generalizations based on conjecture and misinterpretations.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Giantevilhead

[Katrar]

Eroticism in fantasy doesn't belong to one gender, and to even think about condemning it is to reject some of fantasy's most amazingly descriptive, cohesive worlds, some of its most creative artists, and some of the most memorable fantasy stories ever drawn, written, or told.

 

The white knight brigade are fools.

 

That's a very broad generalization. No one is actually condemning eroticism. They're condemning instances when it makes no sense. Not having non-sensical chain bikinis /= no sexuality or sensuality at all.

 

Oh but they are. That's the WHOLE POINT of their argument. That the sexualization is inherently misogynistic and wrong. There are no qualifying factors for chainmail bikinis in white knight world. The "sensibility" is cover. And beyond that, there is little room for sensibility in a fantasy world that is almost entirely a world of imagination. Fantasy worlds are creative affairs, not sensible affairs. The aesthetics may at time mimic sensibility, but doing so is a stylistic choice, not an immutable law. Personally I hope this new fantasy world that OE are creating does take sensible cues. But I think that things like Red Sonja, Conan, and just about anything by Dynamite Entertainment etc (lol) are perfectly fine. And there are a hell of a lot of chainmail bikinis hiding in those pages.

[nikolokolus]

A thread like this degenerating into hyperbole and near personal attack? Nope, didn't see that coming.

[Giantevilhead]

Eroticism in fantasy doesn't belong to one gender, and to even think about condemning it is to reject some of fantasy's most amazingly descriptive, cohesive worlds, some of its most creative artists, and some of the most memorable fantasy stories ever drawn, written, or told.

 

The white knight brigade are fools.

 

That's a very broad generalization. No one is actually condemning eroticism. They're condemning instances when it makes no sense. Not having non-sensical chain bikinis /= no sexuality or sensuality at all.

 

Oh but they are. That's the WHOLE POINT of their argument. That the sexualization is inherently misogynistic and wrong. There are no qualifying factors for chainmail bikinis in white knight world. The "sensibility" is cover. And beyond that, there is little room for sensibility in a fantasy world that is almost entirely a world of imagination. Fantasy worlds are creative affairs, not sensible affairs. The aesthetics may at time mimic sensibility, but doing so is a stylistic choice, not an immutable law. Personally I hope this new fantasy world that OE are creating does take sensible cues. But I think that things like Red Sonja, Conan, and just about anything by Dynamite Entertainment etc (lol) are perfectly fine. And there are a hell of a lot of chainmail bikinis hiding in those pages.

 

But where have "they" specifically said that? Where have "they" said that there shouldn't be any women who look like super models or wear revealing clothing at all? Where have "they" said that female monks or acrobatic type warriors shouldn't wear less clothes? And where have "they" said that chain bikinis would be wrong on a female warrior who actually has a more muscular build?

Edited October 22, 2012 by Giantevilhead

[Agremont]

It's funny how controversial this subject seems to be to some people.

 

I'm one of the people who are very tired of the oversexualization of women in video games, because it usualy makes little sense. It is very one dimensional. Unimaginative etc. It is fine for sexy characters. For example succubi or prostitutes. But as default, no thank you.

 

Personally, I want diversity. Both it appearance and personality. I want beautiful, pretty, plain, ugly and hideous characters of both genders. Having plain looking people will also enhance the beautiful as well as the ugly. Which is awesome in my opinion.

 

So there, that's my 2 cents. No politics needed.

[Katrar]

Eroticism in fantasy doesn't belong to one gender, and to even think about condemning it is to reject some of fantasy's most amazingly descriptive, cohesive worlds, some of its most creative artists, and some of the most memorable fantasy stories ever drawn, written, or told.

 

The white knight brigade are fools.

 

That's a very broad generalization. No one is actually condemning eroticism. They're condemning instances when it makes no sense. Not having non-sensical chain bikinis /= no sexuality or sensuality at all.

 

Oh but they are. That's the WHOLE POINT of their argument. That the sexualization is inherently misogynistic and wrong. There are no qualifying factors for chainmail bikinis in white knight world. The "sensibility" is cover. And beyond that, there is little room for sensibility in a fantasy world that is almost entirely a world of imagination. Fantasy worlds are creative affairs, not sensible affairs. The aesthetics may at time mimic sensibility, but doing so is a stylistic choice, not an immutable law. Personally I hope this new fantasy world that OE are creating does take sensible cues. But I think that things like Red Sonja, Conan, and just about anything by Dynamite Entertainment etc (lol) are perfectly fine. And there are a hell of a lot of chainmail bikinis hiding in those pages.

 

But where have "they" specifically said that? Where have "they" said that there shouldn't be any women who look like super models or wear revealing clothing at all? Where have "they" said that female monks or acrobatic type warriors shouldn't wear less clothes? And where have "they" said that chain bikinis would be wrong on a female warrior who actually has a more muscular build?

 

Oh please, there are dozens upon dozens upon dozens of pages on these forums that have suffered no shortage of demands that female NPC's not wear revealing clothing, lamenting male privilege's effects upon game aesthetics, etc etc etc. If you don't want to see it, can't really help you, but it's here for all to see. The list of threads on the first page of this particular thread is a good place to start.