Body Types and video games

[alanschu]

Moved to here so as to not derail the news thread further.

 

 

 

Ellie from Borderlands 2 was one non-idealistic female character, she was well liked as any other in the game from observations of people talking about them.

The motivation for Ellie, right from the words of Gearbox, was to look "the exact opposite of how most females tend to be represented in games." link

 

Which is part of the problem. Ellie is seen as a statement by the developers themselves, because women that look like her are rare in games. They even made a point to make sure that there were no circumstances that she could be mocked, judged, or pitied based on the way she looked. (Good for them, by the way).

 

 

I don't think it's an issue of diversity at all. Maybe to you it is. But the general complaints I read about this stuff never mention more variety of body types. They're just dead set against female video game characters having huge breasts and tiny waists.

Then, to be frank, I think you're just reading into it superficially and taking all of your preconceived perceptions about the discussion. I literally have stated that it's an issue about diversity to me yet it seems you have already overlooked that.

 

The issue isn't even about attractiveness. The new Lara Croft is still a very attractive woman. She just isn't absurdly and inhumanly proportioned like she was in many of the early PSX games.

 

Even then, if someone is dead set against having women characters with extreme proportions, there's also the degree of "that's their prerogative." Just as it's yours to be upset that these people want things to change.

 

I have to ask, do you NOT want the changes to be made? Or are you suggesting that there should be increased outcry against Marcus Fenix types too? I'm making the assumption that those that requested a change like this see it as increased value added to the game experience.

 

 

My issue is this never seems to crop up with male video game characters. You bring up Mario as an example of diversity, but what about the hundreds of other leading men? Even old guys, like Sam Fisher, have the kind of physiques that most middle aged men can't hope to compete with. Yet there's no complaint about the unrealistic expectations these characters are putting on males.

The issue does crop up with male video game characters. Again I MENTIONED IT, and Nonek gives an indication that he doesn't care for it much either. Two people in this very thread, but we don't seem to count. I think stuff like Marcus is mostly absurd. It's just less overall pervasive. Further, characters like Sam Fisher are, in terms of physique, nothing like Marcus Fenix.

 

From Blacklist: http://static1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130512134461/splintercell/images/e/ec/Sam_Fisher_Render_SCBL.png

Chaos Theory: http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/584/584443/tom-clancys-splinter-cell-chaos-theory-20050201025832169.jpg

Conviction: http://static4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110823073712/splintercell/es/images/b/b6/SF_Darkside.jpg

 

Sam does not suffer from muscle bound grotesque meathead. Though he does suffer from the issues Nonek mentions in his post.

 

 

And really, when shows like Real Housewives of LA or other reality shows with women who are more "fake" than any video game character are the most watched by women on television, it smacks a bit of hypocrisy.

No, it's just a different part of the same problem.

 

Again, you seem to be under the impression that it's almost exclusively women that voice these concerns regarding video games. And since we're pointing out logical fallacies, that some women follow Real Housewives of LA doesn't mean that it's the same women that do get upset about the depiction of females in video games.

 

Don't you get pissed off at the stereotype that men that play video games are nerds and losers that are incapable of meaningful social communications and are doomed to be lifelong virgins? If so, why stoop to the same level of those poor assumptions by making equivalent ones yourself?

Edited January 21, 2014 by alanschu

[BruceVC]

I think my point is clear on this topic, I agree with Alan and almost everything he has said. In fact he has given me a different perspective which is great. But I also want to add something else that I raised on the other topic.

 

I see a difference between the issue of absurdly large breasts on female characters to very muscular male characters, even though you can argue "men are stereotyped ...its unfair and unrealistic" that is not my main issue with the portrayal of females in some games . And the reason is the sexual objectification. A better comparison would be if your male character in a game only wore a loincloth but had this massive bulge in his pants that was completely out of context. How would you feel every time you looked at your character, in fact lets say that every male character in the game irrespective of what they wore had this massive bulge in the pants?

 

It would be unrealistic and I can guarantee you that most people would feel uncomfortable with how men are being represented for a number of reasons

Edited January 21, 2014 by BruceVC

[Hurlshort]

I plan on looking like Sam Fisher in my twilight years, I don't consider that unreasonable.  Except I'll need a hair transplant or something.  

 

New Lara Croft is sooooo much better than the old.

[LadyCrimson]

Thanks alan ... I was wanting to reply to Bester but also didn't want to derail the news thread quite that much.
 

 

I think that sometimes (not always, but sometimes) that comes about because some women feel doing such is a path to getting more attention/getting the job/fame they want and/or will make them feel better or more confident about themselves etc.

No. You're trying to rationalize instinctual behavior, which is a frequent amateur mistake. Females' lives are built around their instinct to attract the strongest of males and get their sеmen. It may sound chauvinist, but I mean no offense. It's just that it's really all there's to it.

 

Heh...not like I'm not familiar with that line of thought, since I've used it in my pessimistic moments re: the essentially unchanged nature of humankind. And yes, despite our intellect we are still instinctual creatures who react without thought to certain stimuli. Fight or flight, fear of unknown/different, and of course the oo-la-la.

But the nature of humanity is not always the same thing as the culture of humanity, and that's where using that as an argument against change falls apart. People wanting/wishing to be as attractive as possible to find mates, natural thing and I doubt you'd find anyone to argue against that.

What is culturally considered attractive, however, is ever changing and is definitely not ruled by instinct alone, but by whatever is the fad at the time. People's interests change, on a cultural level. At one time pudgy women were the height of sexual attractiveness for some. For others it was an exposed ankle. For still others it could be the bone in their perfectly shaped nose or how long their artificially-stretched-from-birth-via-metal-rings neck is. I believe the objection to objectification sometimes (or often) stems less from an objection to sexuality itself and more from how unreasonable that objectification is vs. any reality of what's reasonably physically possible. To most of our "modern" culture, for example, something like forcing girls to bind/literally cripple their feet as a pinnacle of beauty is/seems barbaric, because it's not something reasonable/humane to expect people to do in order to feel like they're attractive/have social worth.

While fantasy Barbie-Doll proportions isn't in the same league as crippling one's feet, as this culture of ours evolves and changes, it's not necessarily unreasonable to think that a culture might eventually deem it unfavorable to use such as a socially-influential measurement of worth. Or such objections may end up petering out and going nowhere. Not for me to say. At any rate, just because we have roots that stem from instinct, in the long run that's usually a poor excuse for justifying not even attempting social/cultural change, if and when a time comes that enough people in a cultural group want change.

...myself, I'm still waiting for the day that flat feet and broad, short-fingered hands are considered the height of female sexiness. I'll have it made then. Never mind that I already have a mate. I can't wait, because then I'll still be considered super-sexy when I'm 65!

[BruceVC]

Thanks alan ... I was wanting to reply to Bester but also didn't want to derail the news thread quite that much.

 

 

I think that sometimes (not always, but sometimes) that comes about because some women feel doing such is a path to getting more attention/getting the job/fame they want and/or will make them feel better or more confident about themselves etc.

No. You're trying to rationalize instinctual behavior, which is a frequent amateur mistake. Females' lives are built around their instinct to attract the strongest of males and get their sеmen. It may sound chauvinist, but I mean no offense. It's just that it's really all there's to it.

 

Heh...not like I'm not familiar with that line of thought, since I've used it in my pessimistic moments re: the essentially unchanged nature of humankind. And yes, despite our intellect we are still instinctual creatures who react without thought to certain stimuli. Fight or flight, fear of unknown/different, and of course the oo-la-la.

 

But the nature of humanity is not always the same thing as the culture of humanity, and that's where using that as an argument against change falls apart. People wanting/wishing to be as attractive as possible to find mates, natural thing and I doubt you'd find anyone to argue against that.

 

What is culturally considered attractive, however, is ever changing and is definitely not ruled by instinct alone, but by whatever is the fad at the time. People's interests change, on a cultural level. At one time pudgy women were the height of sexual attractiveness for some. For others it was an exposed ankle. For still others it could be the bone in their perfectly shaped nose or how long their artificially-stretched-from-birth-via-metal-rings neck is. I believe the objection to objectification sometimes (or often) stems less from an objection to sexuality itself and more from how unreasonable that objectification is vs. any reality of what's reasonably physically possible. To most of our "modern" culture, for example, something like forcing girls to bind/literally cripple their feet as a pinnacle of beauty is/seems barbaric, because it's not something reasonable/humane to expect people to do in order to feel like they're attractive/have social worth.

 

While fantasy Barbie-Doll proportions isn't in the same league as crippling one's feet, as this culture of ours evolves and changes, it's not necessarily unreasonable to think that a culture might eventually deem it unfavorable to use such as a socially-influential measurement of worth. Or such objections may end up petering out and going nowhere. Not for me to say. At any rate, just because we have roots that stem from instinct, in the long run that's usually a poor excuse for justifying not even attempting social/cultural change, if and when a time comes that enough people in a cultural group want change.

 

...myself, I'm still waiting for the day that flat feet and broad, short-fingered hands are considered the height of female sexiness. I'll have it made then. Never mind that I already have a mate. I can't wait, because then I'll still be considered super-sexy when I'm 65!

 

Good post, the one thing missing from these discussions is that we don't get enough comments from our female members about these topics. I know one of the reasons for this is because we don't have a large number of female members who actively participate on the forums but its good to get your opinion in this debate

[GhostofAnakin]

Then, to be frank, I think you're just reading into it superficially and taking all of your preconceived perceptions about the discussion. I literally have stated that it's an issue about diversity to me yet it seems you have already overlooked that.

The issue isn't even about attractiveness. The new Lara Croft is still a very attractive woman. She just isn't absurdly and inhumanly proportioned like she was in many of the early PSX games.

 

Even then, if someone is dead set against having women characters with extreme proportions, there's also the degree of "that's their prerogative." Just as it's yours to be upset that these people want things to change.

 

I have to ask, do you NOT want the changes to be made? Or are you suggesting that there should be increased outcry against Marcus Fenix types too? I'm making the assumption that those that requested a change like this see it as increased value added to the game experience.

 

 

Reading into what, exactly?  I'm not ignoring what you said, or your opinion on the topic.  I'm talking about the general complaints lobbied that I've read about.

 

It's not a dismissal of your views, because my post (while originally quoting you) wasn't directed at YOUR opinion on the matter.  It was on the countless articles and discussion I've seen that are about the outrage over female characters' breast size and the like (ie. body image discussion).

 

Had I been responding to your opinion directly, then yes, I'd have been dismissive.  But my point wasn't directed at you or your thoughts on the topic.

 

As for my opinion on the "changes", I couldn't care less either way.  Make the female breasts gigantic or make them more "normal" (which, by the way, is kind of dismissive of the fact there are women who actually have huge breasts.  You know, variety rather than every female just having tiny boobs).  Make the male cod piece ridiculously huge or make it not even noticeable.  Either way, I don't care because it's an issue that doesn't change my enjoyment of the game.

 

Which is ultimately my point.  It just seems like such a stupid thing for people to get up in arms about.  The reason I'm harping on the male equivalents (ie. super huge muscle guys as the image for male gamers to aspire to) is because there does seem to be a double standard.  But overall, I just think either complaints are silly because we're talking about fictional characters made to look like an "ideal" person of that gender.

[BruceVC]

 

Then, to be frank, I think you're just reading into it superficially and taking all of your preconceived perceptions about the discussion. I literally have stated that it's an issue about diversity to me yet it seems you have already overlooked that.

The issue isn't even about attractiveness. The new Lara Croft is still a very attractive woman. She just isn't absurdly and inhumanly proportioned like she was in many of the early PSX games.

 

Even then, if someone is dead set against having women characters with extreme proportions, there's also the degree of "that's their prerogative." Just as it's yours to be upset that these people want things to change.

 

I have to ask, do you NOT want the changes to be made? Or are you suggesting that there should be increased outcry against Marcus Fenix types too? I'm making the assumption that those that requested a change like this see it as increased value added to the game experience.

 

 

 

As for my opinion on the "changes", I couldn't care less either way.  Make the female breasts gigantic or make them more "normal" (which, by the way, is kind of dismissive of the fact there are women who actually have huge breasts.  You know, variety rather than every female just having tiny boobs).  Make the male cod piece ridiculously huge or make it not even noticeable.  Either way, I don't care because it's an issue that doesn't change my enjoyment of the game.

 

Which is ultimately my point.  It just seems like such a stupid thing for people to get up in arms about.  The reason I'm harping on the male equivalents (ie. super huge muscle guys as the image for male gamers to aspire to) is because there does seem to be a double standard.  But overall, I just think either complaints are silly because we're talking about fictional characters made to look like an "ideal" person of that gender.

 

 

You have unintentionally highlighted another  valid point with this discussion. You say " I couldn't care less" and "seems like such a stupid thing for people to get up in arms about" because the reality is it doesn't effect you and your personal view of how you how you are represented in games. I ask people to have empathy, just because you  don't see an issue with how females are represented in some games it doesn't mean this is not a valid concern for many others

[Undecaf]

I don't know when all this objectification and other social justice in videogames bull started, or when people lost their understanding and tolerance for fiction and art they might not appreciate, but this all - to me - seems to be just a selfelevating vanity affair, and an intentional attempt at finding problems where there really aren't any, to score some extra points within a certain group of people for a reasons unknown to me, perhaps just to fit in. It seems to be just the new hip thing to do; someone made a comment somewhere at some point that struck a spark and suddenly people "see the light" where there previously was none, the virus spreads and now its a common belief that there actually is an issue there that must be weeded out, but among all this mountain out of a molehill stuff there doesn't seem to be a clear picture of what would be the solution, what kind of depiction of what ever sex or species is actually the reasonable one that doesn't send these mysterious subliminal messages. All I see is "cut the boobs out, cover the cleavege - or, deflate the biceps and clothe the body". What is the golden standard according to which these things should be depicted? You will always send some kind of message for those that are actively seeking messages, and someone will always find some **** to say about it. What we see on the screen is more or less just a charicature of the artists vision, and that's how it should be taken whether the boobs and biceps are big or small. This **** really has blown out of proportions a long time ago and I'd rather not read any of it, let alone participate, but it's unavoidable these days.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Undecaf

[Majek]

 A better comparison would be if your male character in a game only wore a loincloth but had this massive bulge in his pants that was completely out of context. How would you feel every time you looked at your character, in fact lets say that every male character in the game irrespective of what they wore had this massive bulge in the pants?

Yes, because we are talking about oversized labias and especially clitori and the wet pants that female game characters have.

[BruceVC]

 

 A better comparison would be if your male character in a game only wore a loincloth but had this massive bulge in his pants that was completely out of context. How would you feel every time you looked at your character, in fact lets say that every male character in the game irrespective of what they wore had this massive bulge in the pants?

Yes, because we are talking about oversized labias and especially clitori and the wet pants that female game characters have.

 

 

"sign" ....its a called an analogy.

 

I was demonstrating what for most men would be the objectification of themselves in games

[HoonDing]

[Nepenthe]

 

 

 A better comparison would be if your male character in a game only wore a loincloth but had this massive bulge in his pants that was completely out of context. How would you feel every time you looked at your character, in fact lets say that every male character in the game irrespective of what they wore had this massive bulge in the pants?

Yes, because we are talking about oversized labias and especially clitori and the wet pants that female game characters have.

 

 

"sign" ....its a called an analogy.

 

I was demonstrating what for most men would be the objectification of themselves in games

 

 

No, the whole point is trying to equalise to different things. Big breasts in video games are analogous to massive arms, pecs and sixpack abs on (almost all) male characters.

 

And Mario...

Edited January 21, 2014 by Nepenthe

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 A better comparison would be if your male character in a game only wore a loincloth but had this massive bulge in his pants that was completely out of context. How would you feel every time you looked at your character, in fact lets say that every male character in the game irrespective of what they wore had this massive bulge in the pants?

Yes, because we are talking about oversized labias and especially clitori and the wet pants that female game characters have.

 

 

"sign" ....its a called an analogy.

 

I was demonstrating what for most men would be the objectification of themselves in games

 

 

No, the whole point is trying to equalise to different things. Big breasts in video games are analogous to massive arms, pecs and sixpack abs on (almost all) male characters.

 

And Mario...

 

 

 

 

 

 A better comparison would be if your male character in a game only wore a loincloth but had this massive bulge in his pants that was completely out of context. How would you feel every time you looked at your character, in fact lets say that every male character in the game irrespective of what they wore had this massive bulge in the pants?

Yes, because we are talking about oversized labias and especially clitori and the wet pants that female game characters have.

 

 

"sign" ....its a called an analogy.

 

I was demonstrating what for most men would be the objectification of themselves in games

 

 

No, the whole point is trying to equalise to different things. Big breasts in video games are analogous to massive arms, pecs and sixpack abs on (almost all) male characters.

 

And Mario...

 

 

I hear you but I still think that massive breast's has a sexual objectification that is not quite the same as good arms or pecs for a man. But we can agree to disagree on this one

[Walsingham]

i heard on the news this morning that research has shown that curvy women are smarter and have smarter babies.

 

If we are demanding curvy women in games, isn't that a demand for smart women? And if it is, then aren't we actually supporting female power?

[HoonDing]

Only big-boned major female character in video games was in Fable 2.

 

 

Molyneux wins again, as usual.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I don't know when all this objectification and other social justice in videogames bull started, .

 

I'd say it started with Ms Pacman and her FM Boots.  

 

[LadyCrimson]

I still don't understand why some seem to feel so threatened because some games decide to try out not having big boobies etc. (that's rhetorical, btw, don't have to try to explain it, because I still likely won't understand it).

 

eg, if it's just fantasy and people shouldn't care/get up in arms if there are giant boobies/massive cleavage then the opposite seems like it should apply as well - it's just fantasy and people shouldn't care/get up in arms if there aren't giant boobies/massive cleavage. See how that works? Mainstream artistic preferences - they change all the time, and of course during any period of change, some "oldtimers" often don't like the change, because we always want what we're used to having, not what new generations may want to have. I definitely have a lot of "oldtimer" whinging about a lot of things over the years but that's neither here or there.

 

As far as, specifically, giant boobies and wasp waists go (or the male equivalent) the simple solution for games, at least, if game companies are really concerned about it, is to always have a character editor/sliders in the game that allow people to enlarge or minimize the breast/waist size of their character, even if the face is static. Or if actual sliders aren't doable, a few body choices to choose from (same head/face, different body style). Of course, this means that the game has to have the funding and art team/development time available, and so on. But as I said, that's the simple solution, not necessarily the most expedient one - perhaps we'll move into an era where game development may decide it's necessary to allot more funds/time to more multiple art choices, if not always, at least more often, in order to stop the issue from being such a constant  issue.

 

Or at least, that'd be nice if that turned out to be the case. Probably won't be tho. Oh well.

[Chilloutman]

so political gender correctness discussion again? I am male and mostly playing male characters as well. I definetely doesnt have six packs but I am not insulted at all if someone play character like that. As long as it have at least some meaning I like 'attractive' womens in games. What problem is it? 

[Orogun01]

I still don't understand why some seem to feel so threatened because some games decide to try out not having big boobies etc. (that's rhetorical, btw, don't have to try to explain it, because I still likely won't understand it).

 

eg, if it's just fantasy and people shouldn't care/get up in arms if there are giant boobies/massive cleavage then the opposite seems like it should apply as well - it's just fantasy and people shouldn't care/get up in arms if there aren't giant boobies/massive cleavage. See how that works? Mainstream artistic preferences - they change all the time, and of course during any period of change, some "oldtimers" often don't like the change, because we always want what we're used to having, not what new generations may want to have. I definitely have a lot of "oldtimer" whinging about a lot of things over the years but that's neither here or there.

 

As far as, specifically, giant boobies and wasp waists go (or the male equivalent) the simple solution for games, at least, if game companies are really concerned about it, is to always have a character editor/sliders in the game that allow people to enlarge or minimize the breast/waist size of their character, even if the face is static. Or if actual sliders aren't doable, a few body choices to choose from (same head/face, different body style). Of course, this means that the game has to have the funding and art team/development time available, and so on. But as I said, that's the simple solution, not necessarily the most expedient one - perhaps we'll move into an era where game development may decide it's necessary to allot more funds/time to more multiple art choices, if not always, at least more often, in order to stop the issue from being such a constant  issue.

 

Or at least, that'd be nice if that turned out to be the case. Probably won't be tho. Oh well.

In the case of WildStar the outrage seems to be more because its a change rather than a design choice. This signifies to many that they are buckling under pressure or trying to pander to feminists. Game companies (at least the publishers) could care less about what goes into a game that doesn't make them money, they probably interpreted that study about game demographics that says that women make up about half the gamers wrong. So pandering to what they perceive is a new growing market when in reality its just a very vocal minority.

[Malcador]

Cool, so we can some day have out of shape Marines in our games.

 

Again, you seem to be under the impression that it's almost exclusively women that voice these concerns regarding video games..
 

 

Seems to be mainly them or male 'journalists' or others just doing their usual preaching circuit, though.

[BruceVC]

 

I still don't understand why some seem to feel so threatened because some games decide to try out not having big boobies etc. (that's rhetorical, btw, don't have to try to explain it, because I still likely won't understand it).

 

eg, if it's just fantasy and people shouldn't care/get up in arms if there are giant boobies/massive cleavage then the opposite seems like it should apply as well - it's just fantasy and people shouldn't care/get up in arms if there aren't giant boobies/massive cleavage. See how that works? Mainstream artistic preferences - they change all the time, and of course during any period of change, some "oldtimers" often don't like the change, because we always want what we're used to having, not what new generations may want to have. I definitely have a lot of "oldtimer" whinging about a lot of things over the years but that's neither here or there.

 

As far as, specifically, giant boobies and wasp waists go (or the male equivalent) the simple solution for games, at least, if game companies are really concerned about it, is to always have a character editor/sliders in the game that allow people to enlarge or minimize the breast/waist size of their character, even if the face is static. Or if actual sliders aren't doable, a few body choices to choose from (same head/face, different body style). Of course, this means that the game has to have the funding and art team/development time available, and so on. But as I said, that's the simple solution, not necessarily the most expedient one - perhaps we'll move into an era where game development may decide it's necessary to allot more funds/time to more multiple art choices, if not always, at least more often, in order to stop the issue from being such a constant  issue.

 

Or at least, that'd be nice if that turned out to be the case. Probably won't be tho. Oh well.

In the case of WildStar the outrage seems to be more because its a change rather than a design choice. This signifies to many that they are buckling under pressure or trying to pander to feminists. Game companies (at least the publishers) could care less about what goes into a game that doesn't make them money, they probably interpreted that study about game demographics that says that women make up about half the gamers wrong. So pandering to what they perceive is a new growing market when in reality its just a very vocal minority.

 

 

Some people take equality and the representation of demographics in games seriously and changes aren't made to game because they are pandering to vociferous minority but they feel its the right thing to do. And if half the  gamers are female then it makes sense to design games that appeal to them on all levels.

[BruceVC]

Cool, so we can some day have out of shape Marines in our games.

 

Again, you seem to be under the impression that it's almost exclusively women that voice these concerns regarding video games..

 

 

Seems to be mainly them or male 'journalists' or others just doing their usual preaching circuit, though.

 

Malc sometimes the right decision is not the most popular one in certain environments

[Malcador]

That and yielding before these social justice slacktivist types is good PR.  Though it's a bit amusing to consider this an injustice of any sort. 

Edited January 21, 2014 by Malcador

[TrashMan]

I see a difference between the issue of absurdly large breasts on female characters to very muscular male characters, even though you can argue "men are stereotyped ...its unfair and unrealistic" that is not my main issue with the portrayal of females in some games . And the reason is the sexual objectification. A better comparison would be if your male character in a game only wore a loincloth but had this massive bulge in his pants that was completely out of context. How would you feel every time you looked at your character, in fact lets say that every male character in the game irrespective of what they wore had this massive bulge in the pants?

 

It would be unrealistic and I can guarantee you that most people would feel uncomfortable with how men are being represented for a number of reasons

 

You have one flawed assumption there - that male sexualization and female sexualization is the same. In other words, that women are "turned on" by the same things as men are.

While there are women that swoon over good-looking men (cough *Twilight*), obviously the standards are different.

For women it's (generally speaking) more emotional than physical, but it's still there. It's just harder to spot. Well, at least sometimes (dont' tell me Twilight isn't sexually objectifiying men).

 

Would it bother me to have a male avatar in a loincloth with a bulge? Not really. We've all seen Connan.

[BruceVC]

 

I see a difference between the issue of absurdly large breasts on female characters to very muscular male characters, even though you can argue "men are stereotyped ...its unfair and unrealistic" that is not my main issue with the portrayal of females in some games . And the reason is the sexual objectification. A better comparison would be if your male character in a game only wore a loincloth but had this massive bulge in his pants that was completely out of context. How would you feel every time you looked at your character, in fact lets say that every male character in the game irrespective of what they wore had this massive bulge in the pants?

 

It would be unrealistic and I can guarantee you that most people would feel uncomfortable with how men are being represented for a number of reasons

 

You have one flawed assumption there - that male sexualization and female sexualization is the same. In other words, that women are "turned on" by the same things as men are.

While there are women that swoon over good-looking men (cough *Twilight*), obviously the standards are different.

For women it's (generally speaking) more emotional than physical, but it's still there. It's just harder to spot. Well, at least sometimes (dont' tell me Twilight isn't sexually objectifiying men).

 

Would it bother me to have a male avatar in a loincloth with a bulge? Not really. We've all seen Connan.

 

 

You've raised a good point about the difference in sexualisation between men and women, but I still firmly believe men can be offended and feel objectified. I also think that male gamers would get annoyed if there was no diversity in the way they were represented in games?