Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

Or maybe a lot of women like romance novels

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I once got to destroy several hundred of those trashy romance novels with an industrial pneumatic crusher. It was the greatest day of my life.

[kaijyuu]

Mine was meeting my fiancee face to face.


Each to their own I guess~

[Willfor]

Or maybe a lot of women like romance novels

And maybe a lot of dudebros like games. Neither of these are good reasons to stifle going after an expanded market, or being inclusive rather than perpetuating exclusionary marketing tactics.

[EnigmaticHat]

Really? I had no idea ... I guess things have changed since the day's of my mum's Mills And Boons novels. But still, the objectification is pretty much the same for both sexes in both genres, one aimed at women, and the other one aimed at men.

People in this thread need to understand that sexy /= objectified /= idealized.

Muscular male heroes in video games are idealized.  They are what their audience wants to be.  They are perhaps a stupid ideal, but an ideal none the less.  They do not need to be and are often not attractive.

Most women in video games are objectified.  They are very likely to be eye candy regardless of their role in the story, or even the genre of video game.  It is not uncommon to have a game that has nothing to do with sex and has no plot lines involving sexual attraction or romance, nonetheless having at least one female character in stripperific clothing.  Female characters in video games tend to be sexual outside the context of romance or sex; they are sex objects because they are put on the screen simply to appeal to the male audience.  The most egregious example of this that I can think of is Soul Caliber, where the female characters are walking balls of fetish appeal yet no one even talks about sex.  The damsel in distress trope Anita talks about is likewise objectification because the damsel is made the object of a male fantasy, simply in a less sexual manner.

Male love interests in romance novels are sexy, but they aren't objectified.  To quote my female friend who I showed the recent parts of this argument, "In romance novels male characters are loving and devoted to the female lead and sexy and mysterious or adventurous or protective or what have you. They make decisions. They have agency. They're sexy, yeah, but they're real characters. Not interchangeable dicks."  She also suggested this link on the topic of objectification in video games.  To go back to what I was saying about objectification, yeah those male characters are sexy, but they typically end up in romantic relationships with the main character.  You know, what with it being a romance novel.  Their sexiness is relevant and makes sense given their role in the story.

[Neonivek]

Honestly if people would stop using the term "Objectified" altogether in these kinds of discussions the quality of said discussions would improve 100 fold.

I am starting think whenever someone says "objectified" they mean "bad". (actually I know that is how it is being used)

Since let me translate:

Most women in video games are made to be like objects.

Which fine I understand what this means... Afterall in a metaplot sense most women are not Agents. Anyone who isn't an agent is an "object" and in that sense they are objectified.

HOWEVER!

The most egregious example of this that I can think of is Soul Caliber, where the female characters are walking balls of fetish appeal yet no one even talks about sex.

That has nothing to do with objectification... Though yes Soul Caliber is the worst game ever in terms of the sexualisation of unsexual characters. Even to the extent of having characters get breast enlargement between games regardless of their roles (DANG IT stop messing with Sophitia!)

Yet all of them are important in their own way, are not strapped to male characters, and many of them actually fulfill their storylines. They actually have roles beyond looking sexy (Taki though basically has no story though...)

---

I feel like I am in a crazy game now.

Male love interests in romance novels are sexy, but they aren't objectified

WHAT!?! They are almost always cardboard cut outs with "qualities women would like" stapled onto them who are "Fulfilled" through the female character.

---

Ok... For the sake of my sanity

Sexualisation even to a character who shouldn't be sexualized isn't related to objectification, it is only an indication that objectification may be happening. It isn't to say there isn't a problem, but lets stop giving the term objectification frequent flier miles because it already can go to mars.

---

As for the video this part: "A common argument in the ongoing debate over gender and videogames is that women and men both are equally objectified"

Is making me cringe at the thought of reading it. Since there is always this sort of "Equality Olympics" and usually it ends with "Women have it so tough that men have no right to complain".

Ok there we go the video is trash... and I only had to get 2 minutes 15 seconds in. I could have turned it off earlier, but I wanted to give it a fair chance.

It is like Male Feminism is stuck where female feminism was in the 70s.

But here is the point of the video:

"Men in videogames are not objectified, because they are made by men and marketed towards men." (It is a summation not a quote)

Which is funny... because even within Feminism they don't accept that female characters made by women and marketed towards women are not objectified. In fact it is considered a serious issue.

The objectification of men is not the same kind of objectification of women in videogames. I mean I absolutely do not agree with the argument "Women have no right to complain that they are objectified because men are equally objectified" even if the "equal" was true (which to me at least it isn't). I do not however agree with that video.

I am unfortunately blinded with rage... so I'll stop.

[Max White]

People in this thread need to understand that sexy /= objectified /= idealized.

I really like this statement, because Enigmatic is a person, and is in this thread.

[Neonivek]

Ehhh I've calmed down.

Though I need a much better definition for objectification.

Mind you I may have hated that video especially because he uses the first 30 seconds to just annoy the viewer... Intentionally.

[Bauglir]

And you didn't actually hear the argument, either, you just assumed you already knew what he was going to say and gave up, and blamed him for it. I want to make clear that I'm trying to be helpful here, but calm down when you're reading or watching things and actually think about what they're saying. And do the same before you post.

EDIT: Soundbite version - Don't assume somebody's a stereotype in order to blame them for being a stereotype.

[Neonivek]

And you didn't actually hear the argument, either, you just assumed you already knew what he was going to say and gave up, and blamed him for it. I want to make clear that I'm trying to be helpful here, but calm down when you're reading or watching things and actually think about what they're saying. And do the same before you post.

I didn't actually stop at 2:15... I hope you are aware of that. (mostly you should because when I summed up his argument... That was past 2:15)

Though I didn't watch the whole thing because it was not only offensive but I actually got past his thesis statement (Which gave me is main argument). The rest can only be the supporting points unless he flips it around at the end. It really isn't worth watching more anyhow...

[Bauglir]

I really wasn't, since you declared it trash at that point and said you could have turned it off earlier, but wanted to give it a fair chance. That pretty heavily implies you turned it off there.

If it's the case that you did continue, you mistook his argument. That summation was a fragment of an argument in support of his conclusion, and that particular argument was that many parts of the gaming industry specifically do not cater to women. Watch it again, try to absorb the rest.

[EnigmaticHat]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Honestly if people would stop using the term "Objectified" altogether in these kinds of discussions the quality of said discussions would improve 100 fold.

I am starting think whenever someone says "objectified" they mean "bad".

Since let me translate:

Most women in video games are made to be like objects.

Also

The most egregious example of this that I can think of is Soul Caliber, where the female characters are walking balls of fetish appeal yet no one even talks about sex.

That has nothing to do with objectification... Though yes Soul Caliber is the worst game ever in terms of the sexualisation of unsexual characters.

Yet all of them are important in their own way, are not strapped to male characters, and many of them actually fulfill their storylines.

---

I feel like I am in a crazy game now.

Male love interests in romance novels are sexy, but they aren't objectified

WHAT!?! They are almost always cardboard cut outs with "qualities women would like" stapled onto them who are "Fulfilled" through the female character.

Neonovik, there's two types of objectification for purposes of this argument.  Object of a character ("in-universe objectification) and object of the audience, or object on a meta-level ("what most people mean when they say objectification in a conversation about video games").  Soul Caliber characters are not tied to male characters, and are thus not the object of an in universe man.  They are, however, a pair of boobies dressed up in ridiculous outfits that they would have no logical reason to wear, spewing out innuendos and being dressed up like dolls in the character creation system.  They are thus made into the sex objects of the audience.

As to the stuff about objectified males in romance novels... yes, they're a fantasy.  Maybe I went a little too far in saying they're not sex objects, but I will stand my ground in saying that men in romance novels are not a problem while women in video games are.  Male characters in romance novels don't have all the stupid baggage that female eye candy always gets.  Their sexiness is acknowledged in universe and the characters are aware of it.  They are tied to the story in a significant way.  They're sexiness (yes, even unrealistic sexiness) is also tied to the story because they are love interests.  They aren't seemingly the subject of ridiculous plastic surgery.  They aren't the subject of a bunch of ridiculous limiting character tropes as to what they can and cannot do*.  And, most importantly, there is no standard that where there's a man, said man must be appealing to the audience.

Seriously, romance novels are the most objectified men get and it still isn't that offensive.  AND we shouldn't even be talking about them because, again, they're smut.  They get a pass to not work so long as they're hot.  We might as well be talking about how women are objectified in internet porn at this point.

I don't get how anyone could argue that male and female objectification are occurring in equal amounts.  We are at a point where Sega added jiggle physics on the breasts of a character in a game where 95% of the characters were animals and that was a kids game, and basically no one noticed or complained because games are just like that.

*Female eye candy cannot: be the pursuer in a relationship.  Be smart and pretty at the same time.  Solve problems without assistance.  Be competent in general.  Its not 100% true in every case but it tends towards true.

[Neonivek]

That summation was a fragment of an argument in support of his conclusion, and that particular argument was that many parts of the gaming industry specifically do not cater to women

Look if one of the major supporting arguments doesn't hold up, why would the rest be any better? The video is aggravating and annoying as it is.

But fine.

They are thus made into the sex objects of the audience

So it means dual purposed.

Maybe I went a little too far in saying they're not sex objects

It has nothing to do with the fact that the men in romance novels are sex objects. In fact often they aren't. The issue is that they are often just reduced to "An object of desire" rather then a character in their own right. With character traits that are meant to be enticing for the audience.

romance novels are the most objectified men get and it still isn't that offensive

It is pretty bad. It may not be offensive but it does often present relationships in a very emotionally stifling and unfulfilling way and puts men into a specific role and often asks that men be controlling, dominant, and violent towards man and women.

It is kind of no different then those Harem animes with a bunch of female characters who are all supposed to be romantic interests... Except even they tend to have more of a 3 dimensional relationship then anyone in a romance novel.

I don't get how anyone could argue that male and female objectification are occurring in equal amounts

Well just in case you are implying I did... NO! I do not think it is occurring in equal amounts. Even while I do think there are different kinds of objectification.

I do also think that "objectification" is not inherently negative, it is just a word that sounds worse then it actually is. Mind you in most conversations you refer to the negative kinds.

Female eye candy cannot: be the pursuer in a relationship Be smart and pretty at the same time.  Solve problems without assistance.  Be competent in general.  Its not 100% true in every case but it tends towards true.

That is really debatable and frankly often not true (not even close to 100%).

The issue is if they retain their competence! Chun-Li for example IS competent and can solve problems AND is smart AND pretty... But she will always pass the buck to a male character (mind you her status as "Eye Candy" is debatable... but then again Eye Candy itself is debatable)

[DJ]

A common trope in romance novel is a man giving up his dreams and ambitions for sake of being with a woman, and this being presented as a transition from childishness to maturity. And that's pretty damn offensive, if you ask me.

[Loud Whispers]

Isn't that what *you're* arguing?  That "Hey, men get fetishized too sometimes"?

Which is why I said just that.

A common trope in romance novel is a man giving up his dreams and ambitions for sake of being with a woman, and this being presented as a transition from childishness to maturity. And that's pretty damn offensive, if you ask me.

Who really *honestly* cares about that though? Must we know strive to eliminate all that is deemed 'offensive' by any one persons?