375 réponses à ce sujet

[Rikketik]

David7204 wrote...

Suppose I make a video game with a character who has large breasts and a slim waste from the beginning. She's a fully developed, well-written character. Tell me, is that 'sexualization' or not?

Depends on whether the game treats her body as just another part of her character or if it goes out of its way to bring her ass, waist and breasts on on screen as much as possible. I believe there's a trope for that, the "third-person seductress". It's basically all those women in videogames who prance through the game as seductively as possible, as if to say: hey guys, look at me being pretty. That's definitely sexualization.

In the past, I've seen people complain about the fact that FemShep has the same movements as Sheploo, but I think that's a good thing for the reason noted above. FemShep's movements look neutral. Female Hawke from Dragon Age II, on the other hand, does have her own walking animation and she seems to concentrate on moving her hips as exaggeratedly as possible.

[David7204]

Every single major character throughout Mass Effect is far, far, far more than his or her body.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

No, David. Stop playing ignorant. I know you're not stupid. You write too well. There is no problem with people being attractive. There is no problem with having a story full of attractive people. I'm far from the ugly branch of the tree, so there is no jealousy of attractive women.

There is a difference between being attractive and being sexualized.

Since we're talking about graphic art and game design here, I'll stick with this. Let's take a character like Miranda. Miranda is attractive. She is designed after an attractive model. Okay so far so good. She'd have looked attractive in a standard Cerberus jump suit, right? She'd have looked attractive in that same one femShep was wearing. The same one Kelly was wearing, right? She didn't need that cat suit to look attractive. Putting Miranda in that cat suit was unnecessarily sexualizing and making a sex object out of her character. It actually made her character have less value.

I found her character repulsive because of that cat suit. It showed me she was insecure about herself, and she was afraid of not being noticed, that she was a drama queen, and that she was very high maintenance. Don't even get me going about the gratuitous ass shots with the camera. Tell me, what was the purpose of those? To focus on her intellectual insight? or to make a sex object out of her?

[CronoDragoon]

Another question that should be asked is whether or not the increase from ME1 to ME2 is actually oversexualization, or whether it's bringing things more in line with average breast sizes. Professor Google tells me the average bra size in America is a 34DD; somebody who has a clue about that sort of thing want to compare?

[CronoDragoon]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

I found her character repulsive because of that cat suit. It showed me she was insecure about herself, and she was afraid of not being noticed, that she was a drama queen, and that she was very high maintenance. Don't even get me going about the gratuitous ass shots with the camera. Tell me, what was the purpose of those? To focus on her intellectual insight? or to make a sex object out of her?

The ass shots I always thought were ridiculous on purpose. I always laughed.

As for the other stuff, I'm actually going to argue that she IS insecure about herself; or at the very least she's been taught to see her genetic enhancements (both physical and mental) as useful tools for first her father and then Cerberus to use. Her appearance is quite on purpose, and I don't mind it because it relates to her character dilemma.

[dversion]

David7204 wrote...

God dammit, how much detail do you need? She's a fully developed, well written character, okay? She's more than her breasts and waist. I'm not going to write two pages on this.

Alright well then let's go with Catwoman. Depending on who's writing her she's usually a well written well developed character who often uses her sexuality to decieve and get out of tricky situations. She's usually very slim, has large breasts, and is in a skin-tight outfit.

So far there's no problem.

It's when she starts doing things out of her character with no other reason than to titilate the reader. Posing in ways that she only would if she were a comic book character, kissing henchmen who want to rape her, licking herself for no reason. It's worse when some writers and artists clearly just create a sex fantasy as demonstrated by the pages written by Frank Miller on catwoman's ass and that her chest becomes larger for no reason over the years other than to attract more readers.

And now every female character has to be like Catwoman because their goal is to sexualize the women to attract more male readers, but then the things that made catwoman unique is the norm.

It's disrespectful for the character they're creating and for the readers.

it's 2013 and this is still a problem and it's actually why a lot of people who may want to get into comics simply find it gross.

I'm not saying Mass Effect is at this extreme condition just yet but the increase in chest size, the heels, the focus on Miranada's ass (as if to say, 'check this out fellas, we made a virtual ass just for you.') is part of the same problem.

[Rikketik]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...
Since we're talking about graphic art and game design here, I'll stick with this. Let's take a character like Miranda. Miranda is attractive. She is designed after an attractive model. Okay so far so good. She'd have looked attractive in a standard Cerberus jump suit, right? She'd have looked attractive in that same one femShep was wearing. The same one Kelly was wearing, right? She didn't need that cat suit to look attractive. Putting Miranda in that cat suit was unnecessarily sexualizing and making a sex object out of her character. It actually made her character have less value.

This is a very good point, I think. Let me start off by saying that there's absolutely nothing wrong with a videogame character being attractive. But, like I said, only if it's just another part of her character. She (or he) just so happens to be attractive, big deal. But that's not what most games do. Most games slap you in the face with that attractiveness and thereby demoting other aspects of her (or his) character. Because how can the player look past that attractiveness and focus on other parts of his/her character when the designers seemingly don't want them to?

[dversion]

Gangnam Style wrote...

dversion wrote...

the topic is whether or not characters, paticularly female characters, should be sexualized.
If that makes the character's weaker over all or is actually better because they appeal to more people.

so not only is it a "debate" about feminism on the internet. it is gamers discussing feminism on the internet

It's a rocky ride! Strap yourself in!

[David7204]

Believe me when I tell you I never found the catsuit that sexual at all. Yeah, it hugs her bum, but that's about it. It doesn't really expose her chest. I actually thought the pattern on the back was kind of cool, and that the texture looked like lizard skin. In a good way. I liked her boots, too.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Another question that should be asked is whether or not the increase from ME1 to ME2 is actually oversexualization, or whether it's bringing things more in line with average breast sizes. Professor Google tells me the average bra size in America is a 34DD; somebody who has a clue about that sort of thing want to compare?

too many additives in the food today.

[David7204]

But Liara doesn't do any of that, either from an in-universe or meta-perspective. She doesn't shake her chest, or massage them, or tweak her nipples. The camera doesn't zoom in on them, or have them juggle when she runs, or put her in seductive poses, or anything of the sort. The same with Ashley. The same with all of the heels for every character aside from Miranda - it's perfectly possible to miss them entirely if you don't deliberately look. The same with EDI - whenever her body comes up in conversation, it's clearly written to be humorous and endearing, not sexually enticing.

Yes, there are a few things I don't like, although they're minor in comparison to the overall characters. But ultimately, I don't think most of these things qualify. I think Ashley was made more attractive to be more attractive. Not to titillate. Same for EDI.

Modifié par David7204, 12 mars 2013 - 06:24 .

[dversion]

When the arists say they want to add 'sex appeal' who are they doing that for? is it her fellow marines? is it some guy she has a crush on?
They're doing it for us, apparently.
That's what I mean by sexulaizing, changing characters for no other reason than to get us to sexually attracted to her.

Why did liara get giant breasts? is it because she's insecure about how she looks and got surgery or was it because the writers were hoping we'd see them and want to stick with the game?

[David7204]

Back to my question. A well written, full developed female character with big breasts and a slim waist from the beginning. She doesn't do anything like catwomen. No licking herself, no seductive poses. The camera doesn't zoom in on her bum. She doesn't wear very revealing clothing.

But she does have big breasts and a slim waist.

Is that sexualization? Or not?

Modifié par David7204, 12 mars 2013 - 06:40 .

[dversion]

David7204 wrote...

Back to my question. A well written, full developed female character with big breasts and a slim waste from the beginning. She doesn't do anything like catwomen. No licking herself, no seductive poses. The camera doesn't zoom in on her bum. She doesn't wear very revealing clothing.

But she does have big breasts and a slim waist.

Is that sexualization? Or not?

Not inherently
I mean you can critisize that body type as being pandering and creatively dull.

Again, characters are a case by case basis and it all depends on the context of the universe, their character, and other characters around them.

If this is somehow the neutral body type then i'm guessing the writer is either making a world for himself to fantasize in or sexualizing all female character to get readers (players, viewers, whatever.)

Modifié par dversion, 12 mars 2013 - 06:42 .

[Rikketik]

dversion wrote...

When the arists say they want to add 'sex appeal' who are they doing that for? is it her fellow marines? is it some guy she has a crush on?
They're doing it for us, apparently.
That's what I mean by sexulaizing, changing characters for no other reason than to get us to sexually attracted to her.

Why did liara get giant breasts? is it because she's insecure about how she looks and got surgery or was it because the writers were hoping we'd see them and want to stick with the game?

Agree with the first part, but I don't think Liara was specifically redesigned to look more sexually attractive. Thing was, in ME1, she was basically a blue human, body-wise. They gave her a unique model in ME2: LotSB. That model had bigger breasts, true, but I believe it was meant as something to differentiate her from the default human model than as purely to titillate.

In fact, I think Samara is a much better example of that. Her cleavage serves no other part than to make her more sexy. Liara, on the other hand, did get bigger breasts, but not that that much bigger as in ME1 and bigger breasts alone doesn't make someone oversexualized. Her coat covers her up completely and while it looks good on her, I wouldn't call is sexy per se.

[David7204]

dversion wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Back to my question. A well written, full developed female character with big breasts and a slim waste from the beginning. She doesn't do anything like catwomen. No licking herself, no seductive poses. The camera doesn't zoom in on her bum. She doesn't wear very revealing clothing.

But she does have big breasts and a slim waist.

Is that sexualization? Or not?

Not inherently
I mean you can critisize that body type as being pandering and creatively dull.

Again, characters are a case by case basis and it all depends on the context of the universe, their character, and other characters around them.

If this is somehow the neutral body type then i'm guessing the writer is either making a world for himself to fantasize in or sexualizing all female character to get readers (players, viewers, whatever.)

Not inherently. Okay. Go ahead and imagine the best-case scenario for this exercise where her attractiveness isn't a part of the plot. It's never brought up. So we've got a character who is definitely not sexualized.

What's the point of her having big breasts and a slim waist?

Modifié par David7204, 12 mars 2013 - 06:49 .

[dversion]

David7204 wrote...

dversion wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Back to my question. A well written, full developed female character with big breasts and a slim waste from the beginning. She doesn't do anything like catwomen. No licking herself, no seductive poses. The camera doesn't zoom in on her bum. She doesn't wear very revealing clothing.

But she does have big breasts and a slim waist.

Is that sexualization? Or not?

Not inherently
I mean you can critisize that body type as being pandering and creatively dull.

Again, characters are a case by case basis and it all depends on the context of the universe, their character, and other characters around them.

If this is somehow the neutral body type then i'm guessing the writer is either making a world for himself to fantasize in or sexualizing all female character to get readers (players, viewers, whatever.)

Not inherently. Okay. Go ahead and imagine the best-case scenario for this exercise where her attractiveness isn't a part of the plot. It's never brought up. So we've got a character who is definitely not sexualized.

What's the point of her having big breasts and a slim waist?

I'm not any other writer other than myself. the reasons I could think of that it's a miranda situation, someone genetically altered to be super attractive, or critique the body type in fiction and make someone who is very physically strong despite the way people see her.

Or you could just feel it's right for that character for whatever reason.

The thing you shouldn't do is make a character in order to try and make your audience have a hard on.

[dversion]

aaand... first draft of this damn project is done. Imma sleep.

[David7204]

Yes, I did say her attractiveness is not part of the plot and never brought up...

It sounds to me that you think the mere existence of a character with big breasts and a slim waist is sexualization. The only exception is if specifically ties into the plot. Is that about right?

Modifié par David7204, 12 mars 2013 - 07:03 .

[dversion]

*yawn* wha? no. I must have missed that part. Again it depends on the context and the personality of the character.

think of it this way? are you making a character because you think men will find it sexy and thus because of that you get more views of your work or do you think it makes a good character? That's the difference.

Okay good night.

[David7204]

I don't think that's the difference at all.

You said a character with big breasts and a slim waist is not inherently 'sexualized.'

The character's attractiveness has no role in the plot. No role. I really do not see how much the rest of the characterization goddamn matters, so long as we assume that she is well developed and written.

So either one of two things must be true. Either the character in question is indeed sexualized, in which case the mere existence of a character with big breasts and a slim waist is sexualization, with the only exception being if her attractiveness specifically ties into the plot. Or the character isn't sexualized, in which case there must be some 'point' to her having big breasts and a slim waste I haven't considered according to your definition of sexualization.

Modifié par David7204, 12 mars 2013 - 07:26 .

[dversion]

I don't know how you think characters are written or created. They're not picked out of a void, Unless it's based on a real person then every part of a character is created with reason. Skinny, fat, blonde, green-eyed, whatever.

A good writer will work on the physical appearance that works with their character.
It's either because of the writer's own biases (i.e. what he or she finds attractive.) because he thinks it works into the character's personality better and strengthens the character, that the character's appearance works into the story, or you just want appeal to viewers.

[David7204]

Is there a possible scenario where a female character exists with big breasts and a slim waist where her attractiveness is not part of the plot that isn't sexualization? All I'm asking is if it's possible. You can tweak any other variables you want. I don't care. Hence me saying 'best case scenario.' It should really be a yes or no question, because again, I'm giving you leeway to tweak any other variables you want.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

David you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. You lost. You know it.