Print

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

[Neonivek]

Is really just adorably naive

No what is going to make it impossible to keep up any kind of dialogue is because we have no platform to argue and we are in different planes.

Also it is rare for me to see someone other then me being put into a "Stop putting words into my mouth" also I cannot "Win" because I am not presenting an arguement to anyone but you. Being inable to understand what I am saying in a valid sense because I cannot present it in an appropriate fashion is hardly "winning".

Please do explain how fanservice being common would make it any less fanservice

In the Victorian Era there were clothes that women were required to wear in order to not be considered a whore. Showing as much as your ankles actually gave you the title "Ankle Whore".

Now adays someone showing their ankles would be considered... just someone showing their ankles because we have become so desensitised by it to the extent that it has long since stopped being considered sexual.

Heck in some countries a woman's face is considered explicitly sexual.

My proposal is simply through the process of desensitisation that we shift the values and make what was considered fanservice one day, to be completely tame and ordinary the next.

[Flying Dice]

So you're relying on cultural relativism, except with fanservice instead of ethics? "It's not fanservice if they're always dressed like they're looking for a john?" Yeah, no. You chose a rather poor point to fight as well; Western comics are notorious for sexualizing damned near every female character. When one of the primary reasons for a character to exist is to be sexy, that's fanservice. Whether the character wears a tiny metal swimsuit as their crimefighting outfit or has perpetual antigravity boobs isn't a particularly notable difference. Just because Western characters are by and large walking fanservice machines rather than having occasional (or multiple-per-episode) fanservice moments doesn't mean it isn't fanservice, any more than it does for similar characters in anime.

[Neonivek]

Flying Dice I am not sure you even read western comics if "When one of the primary resons for a character to exist is to be sexy" is actually what you believe the majority of female characters are.

While I do think unjust fanservice is overly rampant, I can seperate a "Fanservice character" and "A character doing fanservice" and a "Character overly sexualised to the point of Fanservice" as they are important/vital distinctions.

Most characters are written as characters first and then through the process of drawing them they often go "Hey, what if we maker her breasts huge, make her hips curvy, and make sure she can only walk by sauntering".

Fanservice and "Sexual characters" are seperate in my mind.

I am seriously wondering who I am arguing with... Since I am getting very specific arguements that I have long since divorsed.

"It's not fanservice if they're always dressed like they're looking for a john?" Yeah, no

Temporal mistake you made... a rather large one. Let me correct you

"It's not fanservice. Why are you being turned on by a Dress John? Your mother wears that"

In otherwords certain looks start to become desexualised over time. You can see that happening RIGHT NOW with Bathing suits with certain styles being considered non-sexual that were considered extremely sexual 20 years ago. For example 6 year olds can wear Bikinis and Two peices without getting looks.

This is the process of Desexualisation.

Thus many of the costumes you have labled as being Extremely sexualised have long since, to people who read comics, been desexualised. Sometimes this means they go for even sexier costumes (As is, unfortunately, often the case for Catwoman) and sometimes they just don't change it.

---

Though yes as I say... Anime looks at that and goes "Please, we can do better. Watch as we create sexual tension between 12 year olds as one beats the other with a crop."

[Flying Dice]

You seem to be missing the point, Neonivek. Fanservice is unnecessary sexualization of characters. Do characters need to have improbably skintight swimsuits to fight crime? No. There is no reason for that sort of thing except to turn on the reader. If you think otherwise, you're pretty clearly delusional. Do you think that people, male or female, (barring exhibitionists) go around wearing scraps of skintight material every day? It's the same with the chainmail bikini (and related tropes) and so forth.

You're trying to excuse it with changing standards: that's irrelevant. Our standards govern what is acceptable in public, not what is or is not sexually attractive. Human beings are aroused by the bodies of other human beings, regardless of what the standard of exposure is.

Most characters are written as characters first and then through the process of drawing them they often go "Hey, what if we maker her breasts huge, make her hips curvy, and make sure she can only walk by sauntering".

How the hell do you not think this is fanservice? Incidentally, I'm curious as to why you apparently don't have a problem with objectification of women.

Temporal mistake you made... a rather large one. Let me correct you

"It's not fanservice. Why are you being turned on by a Dress John? Your mother wears that"

In otherwords certain looks start to become desexualised over time. You can see that happening RIGHT NOW with Bathing suits with certain styles being considered non-sexual that were considered extremely sexual 20 years ago. For example 6 year olds can wear Bikinis and Two peices without getting looks.

This is the process of Desexualisation.

Thus many of the costumes you have labled as being Extremely sexualised have long since, to people who read comics, been desexualised. Sometimes this means they go for even sexier costumes (As is, unfortunately, often the case for Catwoman) and sometimes they just don't change it.

You're rather committed to this, despite it being clearly inconsistent. Something is "sexy" or "normal" if you think it's normal, but "fanservice" if you don't? Give me a good reason for the depictions of women in western comics that doesn't related to turning people on. Otherwise, see the first line of my post.

[Neonivek]

You seem to be missing the point, Neonivek. Fanservice is unnecessary sexualization of characters.

No that isn't what scriver was talking about at all. Scriver was talking about any sexualisation of a character being fanservice. As in anytime a character has breasts that are larger then average or wears attractive clothing.

>_< I can't keep up with two entirely different arguements >_<

How the hell do you not think this is fanservice? Incidentally, I'm curious as to why you apparently don't have a problem with objectification of women

It was the order that was important as well I was just arguing against a single point. I can do that.

You're trying to excuse it with changing standards

No it is a product of you and Scriver having two entirely different definitions.

>_<

Give me a good reason for the depictions of women in western comics that doesn't related to turning people on

Think of an attractive woman and dress her accordingly to enhance that image. You can very well without the intent of creating a fanservice character have created one, it isn't impossible and it happens a lot of the time (Heck one of the first female characters I ever made wore a short skirt and skin tight clothing. Not because she was sexual but because I designed her attire around figure skating dresses. Yet if I shown a picture of her I would have easily been accused of making her Fanservice when really that never crossed my mind).

Fanservice isn't as simple as pointing out that a woman is athletic, attractive, and doesn't have small breasts. It isn't as simple as pointing out that they are wearing less clothes then normal... because there is always a sphere of embellishment.

You actually have to look even further and see what they are trying to say about that character. Are they trying to say "Ohh look boobs!" or are they just presenting with a woman that someone could be a total pervert over because people are perverts

Which I guess is really the point Flying Dice... Not everyone is a pervert.

I am not trying to say that Fanservice doesn't exist, I am not trying to say you cannot exagerate a woman's appearance until they are unjustly fanserviced, and I am not saying you cannot put a woman into a situation in order to be fanservice (Like the original Wonderwoman... who while her look would be modest, for a super hero, now, her situations would include a lot of fanservice). I am only saying that women can look attractive without being Fanservice, a woman can have a sexuality without being fanservice and that the sphere in which this can happen is much larger.

Fanservice (not exactly the best term for it) is a large problem in Comic books but you guys chose the worst targets for it or simply didn't know why your target was suffering from Fanservice.

[scriver]

Cultural blinders, man. Just like I said. Completely unable, or just unwilling, to take a step back and evaluate his own media culture from an unbiased point of view.

[Neonivek]

Cultural blinders, man. Just like I said. Completely unable, or just unwilling, to take a step back and evaluate his own media culture from an unbiased point of view.

No, it is that I have to have room for a woman to be a woman and not a sexual object.

Also no Scriver you are actually sort of presenting my points in a completely inaccurate way. Since you are applying what I am saying to every situation when it is clear that wasn't what I was trying to do. You need to back down and apply my points within the scope I was presenting them in.

I have to be much more aggressive now. Since it is clear I have to break down your perception of my arguements instead of trying to present them in the best way possible.

[kaijyuu]

Know what the shape of this argument is?

It's not a square.
It's not a triangle.
It's not a pentagon.


It's a circle!

[scriver]

Yes, Neonivek, I sure am sexist for calling out sexism. Just like I'm a bigot for calling out bigotry, I guess. That's how it works, all right.

[Neonivek]

Yes, Neonivek, I sure am sexist for calling out sexism

AHHHHHH! NOOOOO!

Flying dice please come back!

---

Also scriver that actually wouldn't be "sexism" that would be ignorance. Assuming you are applying it to me. There is a rather large difference.

[Reelya]

You know, Neon, it's going to be impossible to keep up any kind of dialogue with you if you insist on putting words in my mouth. If you're trying to "win" by making me too tired to repeat "that's not what I said", it's certainly working, though.

And this;

Just because a woman is attractive it doesn't mean she is being fanservice. The intent could very well be just to create an attractive woman

...Is really just adorably naive. Too bad it'as completely irrelevant and the idea completely falls apart when you view trends in media as a whole.

Oh, and lastly. Please do explain how fanservice being common would make it any less fanservice.

It's actually more like "slippery slope" than straw-man actually.

"Stripperific outfits" = "fan service"

Becomes:

"All Attractive Women" = "fan service"

Because there's no perfect "line" that can be drawn between the two categories, the slippery slope argument can be made. But that doesn't mean they're not separate categories. I think pretty much anyone would get to a point as a model was gradually "sexed up" that they'd agree "yeah, that's just completely slutty now".

[Neonivek]

It doesn't exactly work there Reelya because we have long since actually bridged that gap and expanded upon it.

The problem is that either neither of us is on the same page or one or more of us has an extreme oppinion.

It is quite hard for me to tell what Scriver is saying a lot of the time because everytime he writes I try as hard as I can to just assume he isn't saying what I think he is saying (Which is one of two lines of thinking).

So I back up and try to present my point better over and over again.

Which didn't work

So I instead broke down Scriver's statement of how my arguement worked.

Which lead to "You are sexist" which is usually a sign that the conversation has completely broke down.

If my will to live wasn't so damaged by this the appropriate thing to do in a time like this is actually to back up to the very beggining or to make the other person restate their entire arguement. Which you can tell why I wouldn't want to because this entire conversation is rather nightmarish.

I can easily tell when a conversation is going well when the person I am speaking to knows what I am saying and in what context. Whether or not they agree or disagree is really not a concern. Flying Dice was closer to knowing what I mean but was a bit off. Scriver gets a very polarised version of what I said.

It also doesn't help that I don't understand Scriver either though. I usually try to understand what people are saying by bouncing it off of what they say about what I am saying. Then apply the "Assume they are making a valid logical arguement" filter.

The hard part with Scriver is I am trying to get the mid ground but it seems like any form of sexuality in a woman being shown is fanservice for Scriver. Which my logical arguement filter tells me cannot be the case.

[SalmonGod]

I think what Neonivek is trying to get at is criticism of a culture as a whole needs to be separated from criticism of artists working within that culture and their individual creations.

Yes, there is much to be said about how normalized it is for female characters to be sexualized.

But this presents every artist with certain choices that they must prioritize.  If an artist chooses to make a central character significantly less sexualized than the norm, they do this with the knowledge that their audience is going to be hyper-aware of and focus on that aspect of their work.  It's going to be seen as a statement.  People will talk about it.  It will overshadow other things the artist might have wanted to communicate with their work, likely as a higher priority than gender issues.  Few artists will want their entire careers to end up being about gender controversy, and you can't blame them for that.  There are other things in this world that deserve attention, and then sometimes people just want to make something entertaining.

One example of this I can think of would be The Watchmen film.  That film generated a great amount of buzz, as it should being a story with lots of very deep and relevant political and philosophical content.  Were people talking about that stuff?  No.  They were gasping "OMG SMURF DICK!"  It was a very strong case of choosing to challenge a cultural media norm (penises onscreen are a big deal and almost never seen outside of hardcore porn) completely distracted much of the audience from everything else the work wanted to communicate.  (Side Note:  In retrospect, it's kind of interesting that this is the gender statement that caught everyone's attention, after Silk Spectre I and II literally had an argument on-screen about the sexualization of their character.)

So if an artist doesn't want their work to be treated that way, they're going to go along with the norms.  This means sexualized characters.  It also means the intent of the artist isn't necessarily always fanservice, at least in a "I'm going to make this girl so hot so that all the guys will pay to oggle her" way.

[Reelya]

The problem is what is the conversation about? We're defining "fan service" or at least that's how it started.

The way hyper-sexualized females are portrayed in American superhero comics is not fan-service because it's "expected", and done primarily to keep up with market expectations, right?

Couldn't you make the same argument for hyper-sexualized content in ecchi harem animes? The "average" harem anime displays females no more or less sexualized than other examples of the genre, by definition of being average.

But this presents every artist with certain choices that they must prioritize.  If an artist chooses to make a central character significantly less sexualized than the norm, they do this with the knowledge that their audience is going to be hyper-aware of and focus on that aspect of their work.  It's going to be seen as a statement.  People will talk about it.
...
So if an artist doesn't want their work to be treated that way, they're going to go along with the norms.  This means sexualized characters.  It also means the intent of the artist isn't necessarily always fanservice, at least in a "I'm going to make this girl so hot so that all the guys will pay to oggle her" way.

General principles should apply generally. This would apply to explicit manga/anime just as much as comic books.

[Neonivek]

I wasn't really trying to say all that much SalmonGod only so much that there is a sphere for a character to be attractive without nessisarily being fanservice and that sexualisation can stem naturally from that whether intended to or not.

Male characters wear many of the exact same things female characters wear but are considered less sexualised (sorta, there are forms of thinking that considers the male comando steriotype to actually be on par with the Barbie steriotype).

Women just sort of have the short end of the stick in this debate because they have breasts. Which oddly enough I think it all boils down to that.

The way hyper-sexualized females are portrayed in American superhero comics is not fan-service because it's "expected", and done primarily to keep up with market expectations, right?

Couldn't you make the same argument for hyper-sexualized content in ecchi harem animes? The "average" harem anime displays females no more or less sexualized than other examples of the genre, by definition of being average.

No because it is all about intent. There are plenty of fanservice females in American Super Hero comics but not all attractive, breasted, athletic women are nessisarily in that category.

Mind you, if you mean "Unnessisary sexualisation" then yeah... Ecchi actually doesn't have any. If you mean Fanservice as in "Sexual content included for the sake of sexual content" then its goal is to be nothing but.

---

I've actually seen arguements as to why certain hypersexualised women arn't "Fanservice" BECAUSE the fact that they are sexual characters is intentional.