| o_O.Q said: " Idealised =/=Sexualised." in the context of physical makeup, they are the exact same thing "sexualisation is not being cut out of games." it is and honestly i wouldn't have a problem with that if the reason was logical and consistent "His whole outfit is also functional, whereas the latter is literally about sexualisation." men and women in terms of their dress often typically display this difference, in that men generally dress more practically whereas women dress to emphasize their sexual appeal more this is why makeup, heels, low cut dresses etc etc etc exist but of course its not politically correct to point out these differences in how men and women present themselves this is why its pretty idiotic for sjws to claim "WOMEN NEED TO BE DEPICTED THE SAME AS MEN IN GAMES OR ELSE BOYS WILL BE SOCIALISED TO THINK WOMEN ARE SEXUAL OBJECTS"... the obvious rebuttal is what are you going to do about the way real women present themselves? if this argument is actually valid (which its obviously not) why wouldn't the kim kardassians and ava roses of the world do the same? "Emphasis on crotch shots... Military outfits centred on sideboobs lol...Compelely random outfits there to sell the anatomy" its almost as bad as if they were shirtless "If Ryu & the other male charcters were sexualised the same" men and women are not the same and are attracted to different things "more varied body types and not just steroid bodies" i don't think you are going to find many people who find fat/short men more attractive than muscular/tall men "Random nudity creeping into male outfits where it doesn't belong & outfits existing just to tease" being shirtless is not nudity? how far would we need to go to put men on the same level as women wearing at the very least dancing outfits? |
"in the context of physical makeup, they are the exact same thing" Lol, no they're not. Straight men do not sexualise other straight men, so they're idealised version is not necessarily based on sexualisation. When Gearbox decided it wanted its characters to be grizzly boxes of meat in the early Gears entry, I promise you no one was sexualising those characters and they were not created to be sexualised. And often sexes misinterpret the desires of the opposite sex. What woman might idealise may not align with mens desires i.e tons of makeup
And yes, men and woman typically depict themselves different and its ok for games to reflect this, i.e the female characters wearing makeup, dresses etc. But if you can't acknowledge the extreme of this presented in SF5 then I don't think its even worth having a convo with you tbh. What you're inherently saying is that its ok ultra sexualise the female characters (as in SF) because they do it to themselves in real life; the simple answer to this question is:
How would a predominantly female team design their rooster of female characters?
And by "more varied body types" I mean athletic body types, but maybe all you see is "tall" and "muscular" bodies, which just reinforces my point about the straight male gaze which is why you think the presentation of Ryu and Cammy are equivalents.
"Being shirtless is not nudity?". Again you show you lack understanding of sexualisation, Ryu shirtless because he's in his karate gear is not the same as him wearing an open blazer with a trouser line dangerously close to his pelvis or randomly exposing his abs in an outfit where it doesn't make sense, i.e its purely there to titulate. Every one of these images is more sexualised in spite of them expressing less or equivalent levels of skin than a random shirtless male in karate gear.
