By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Sexy and Sexism are not the same thing?

 

Does Sexy = Sexism

No 113 80.14%
 
Yes 7 4.96%
 
Maybe 2 1.42%
 
Sometimes 11 7.80%
 
See Results 7 4.96%
 
Total:140
Osc89 said:
JoeTheBro said:

Is the design of this girl from MGS5 sexist?

She seems to have an ideal body and is certainly showing it off, and I'd still say no.


The design by itself isn't sexist. However if the male characters don't have similar treatment it probably is sexist. It is really about the context.

I'm not sure what it is that this girl does in game but that top certainly isn't practical in any way i can imagine.  Really, tying a knot in some cloth really doesn't give much support when the package is that big.



Around the Network

An interesting thread. In my view, it is a matter of how the sexiness of the subject if portrayed and/or if they are objectified. Being sexy and sexism are not directly related.

Here is the idea behind it. Male gamers, like males in general, look up to and idealise men of a certain type, whether these are football stars, movie characters/stars or game characters. They are of a certain role model like type. Usually rugged/grizzled, fit and 'manly'. This includes usually being good looking. Nathan Drake being the prime example.

There is no reason why female gamers automatically want to play as your average Josephine Bloggs is there? They would want to play as a strong willed, independent female character that is also 'sexy', not only in the fact she portrays herself in a certain manner but by the fact they look good too. Lara Croft or more recently Nilin from Remember Me being good examples.

The problem would be when that sexiness is exploited for objectification. Megan Fox in Transformers movies does nothing but look pretty really, she's even lead about La Buffs character by the hand on numerous occasions even though she was meant to be this bad-ass car loving girl, independent from her 'man' earlier in the film. The Metal Gear 5 character from earlier is a great example of objectification, half naked for no reason. Dead Or Alive Volley Ball but at least that doesn't hide from it).

Sadly, to do that with males is harder to do because of the games industry. Male dominated in development and market.




Hmm, pie.

Osc89 said:
JoeTheBro said:

Is the design of this girl from MGS5 sexist?

She seems to have an ideal body and is certainly showing it off, and I'd still say no.


The design by itself isn't sexist. However if the male characters don't have similar treatment it probably is sexist. It is really about the context.


We live in a progressive world, silly.

Everyone can be equally objectified !



The key question is "are you making that character into an object by making him/her sexy?"

There is this misconception that a female character (I read this in a USA Today article about the personae women are taking on in pop music) has to be a virgin or a whore, that there's no real sliding scale between a woman portrayed as mostly asexual, or a slut, but i very much disagree with that assessment. Take a look at Sex and the City, where each woman was hot (in a different way), each one was quite sexually active (Miranda's periodic droughts notwithstanding), yet none of them were portrayed as "whores," that is, women who lived simply to be sex objects for men. Even the insanely sexually active Samantha demonstrated that she was very much in control of almost all of her encounters. This show is good evidence (though only one piece of evidence), that sexy and sexually active female characters are not necessarily misogynistic in portrayal, and can still be seen as quite empowering.

In video games, Bayonetta is a good example. She's was designed to ooze sexuality, down to the whole "strip for powerful attacks" mechanic, but she defines her own sexuality, she strips to *attack*, notably, not as a sign of submission. She owns her own sexuality and revels in it.

On the other side, we observe Dead Or Alive, especially the Volleyball games. The fighting games, now, are more legitimate because the women are portrayed as fully-fleshed characters, where their sexuality is just a part of who they are. The Volleyball games are all about reducing their stature to mere objects, dating sims and girl/girl shenanigans and buying accessories and all.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Aielyn said:
JoeTheBro said:

Is the design of kratos sexist?

He seems to have an ideal body and is certainly showing it off, but I'd say no.

 

Is the design of this girl from MGS5 sexist?

She seems to have an ideal body and is certainly showing it off, and I'd still say no.

I don't know about the characters, but YOU are sexist. Apparently Kratos has an "ideal body" because he's strong and muscular (which makes sense - he's the god of war), while the girl's body is "ideal" because? Overly thin, big breasts? What is that ideal for? Sex?

Anyway, you claim that the two characters are equally designed. They're not. Kratos is muscular for a reason, and his outfit is designed to de-emphasise any possible sexual element. Furthermore, his outfit is perfectly suited to what he's going to do, when any extraneous clothing could get in the way or give foes something to grab. The girl's body shape is thin with big boobs... why? Which wouldn't be a big deal, if not for the fact that her outfit is clearly designed to emphasise it, with the bikini underwear, skintight leggings, etc. And why is she dressed like this, exactly? Sexism is definitely informing the design.

Let me put it another way - you could easily see a martial artist dressed in the way Kratos is dressed. Would you ever see a military woman running around in the clothes that the girl's wearing? And would that bra really afford her the kind of support she'd need given the kind of action she'd be expecting to see?

Sexism isn't about the design, it's about the reason for it. Zero Suit Samus's design isn't sexist because her clothes are designed for minimal separation between body and suit, and simultaneously maintains the kind of natural modesty that you'd expect from a confident and independent woman. On the other hand, if Zelda were outfitted in the same way, that would be sexist, because a princess who depends on magical ability when she does fight wouldn't be wearing such clothing.

If the character designs were reversed and he found them more appealing would he be sexist then? You just as many other with your train of thought will find offense no matter the situation. 

A persons preference of anothers appearance is not in of itself sexist. If the poster made the claim that female characters must always fit this description and NO other view should be accepted then you might have a case but he does not. In fact he never even stated his preference between the two but offered a contrast and comparison.

And as for your question about women in the military, yes yes you would. Can't tell you how many REAL enlisted and comissioned female soldiers, marines, sailors, airmen etc. I have seen posing in videos and photos with nothing but their load bearing equipment and/or weapon on and while deployed inside an active combat zone on their own volition no less!



Around the Network
-CraZed- said:

If the character designs were reversed and he found them more appealing would he be sexist then? You just as many other with your train of thought will find offense no matter the situation. 

A persons preference of anothers appearance is not in of itself sexist. If the poster made the claim that female characters must always fit this description and NO other view should be accepted then you might have a case but he does not. In fact he never even stated his preference between the two but offered a contrast and comparison.

And as for your question about women in the military, yes yes you would. Can't tell you how many REAL enlisted and comissioned female soldiers, marines, sailors, airmen etc. I have seen posing in videos and photos with nothing but their load bearing equipment and/or weapon on and while deployed inside an active combat zone on their own volition no less!

The key is not "what" but "why". In the case of the servicewoman you're speaking of, were they truly doing it of their own volition (i'm not saying that's not possible. It's more than likely that it was their idea, since weaker-willed women are less likely to go to the service in the first place), or are they doing it to look sexy for the men, or due to peer pressure from the servicemen?



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Mr Khan said:
-CraZed- said:
 

If the character designs were reversed and he found them more appealing would he be sexist then? You just as many other with your train of thought will find offense no matter the situation. 

A persons preference of anothers appearance is not in of itself sexist. If the poster made the claim that female characters must always fit this description and NO other view should be accepted then you might have a case but he does not. In fact he never even stated his preference between the two but offered a contrast and comparison.

And as for your question about women in the military, yes yes you would. Can't tell you how many REAL enlisted and comissioned female soldiers, marines, sailors, airmen etc. I have seen posing in videos and photos with nothing but their load bearing equipment and/or weapon on and while deployed inside an active combat zone on their own volition no less!

The key is not "what" but "why". In the case of the servicewoman you're speaking of, were they truly doing it of their own volition (i'm not saying that's not possible. It's more than likely that it was their idea, since weaker-willed women are less likely to go to the service in the first place), or are they doing it to look sexy for the men, or due to peer pressure from the servicemen?

Of course they are on their own volition. In fact many of them were subject to UCMJ actions for conduct unbecoming, violating general orders etc.

Appearing in that manner if by force is a different subject all together and is a crime. I was discussing known, self-motivated actions by culpable and coherent adults.

Though that brings up a point in my mind that the sexist moniker could/should be reserved for those who DO resort to criminal behavior to force sexualization/degredation onto someone. sexist = rapist,  sexist =/= artist.



-CraZed- said:
Mr Khan said:
-CraZed- said:
 

If the character designs were reversed and he found them more appealing would he be sexist then? You just as many other with your train of thought will find offense no matter the situation. 

A persons preference of anothers appearance is not in of itself sexist. If the poster made the claim that female characters must always fit this description and NO other view should be accepted then you might have a case but he does not. In fact he never even stated his preference between the two but offered a contrast and comparison.

And as for your question about women in the military, yes yes you would. Can't tell you how many REAL enlisted and comissioned female soldiers, marines, sailors, airmen etc. I have seen posing in videos and photos with nothing but their load bearing equipment and/or weapon on and while deployed inside an active combat zone on their own volition no less!

The key is not "what" but "why". In the case of the servicewoman you're speaking of, were they truly doing it of their own volition (i'm not saying that's not possible. It's more than likely that it was their idea, since weaker-willed women are less likely to go to the service in the first place), or are they doing it to look sexy for the men, or due to peer pressure from the servicemen?

Of course they are on their own volition. In fact many of them were subject to UCMJ actions for conduct unbecoming, violating general orders etc.

Appearing in that manner if by force is a different subject all together and is a crime. I was discussing known, self-motivated actions by culpable and coherent adults.

Though that brings up a point in my mind that the sexist moniker could/should be reserved for those who DO resort to criminal behavior to force sexualization/degredation onto someone. sexist = rapist,  sexist =/= artist.

I'm not talking about "force", i'm talking about "pressure." If there is an environment in a given army/navy/AF unit whereby the men put pressure on the women to act like sex objects (without using any overt forms of intimidation), then that's just as bad. Sexual harassment is far more than ass-pinching and attempted rape, it's deeper and more insidious. (again, doesn't mean the women in question were acting in a sexually harrassing environment, but still)



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Aielyn said:
JoeTheBro said:
Are you calling me sexist for saying she seems to have an ideal body, or are you calling me sexist for saying the female's design isn't sexist? Both?

The former. Not so much in isolation, but in comparison to your description of Kratos as having an ideal body. You view the ideal male body as strength and muscle, who gives a crap about the visuals. You view the ideal female body as sex appeal, entirely about the visuals.


In both cases I was refering to the average ideal body in the eyes of the opposite sex. With Kratos it was about the visuals of strength and muscle, not just the fact he has them. Google sexy guy, and you'll get a bunch of pictures with the same build as Kratos. Google sexy girl, and you'll get a bunch of pictures with the same build as her.



Mr Khan said:
The key question is "are you making that character into an object by making him/her sexy?"

There is this misconception that a female character (I read this in a USA Today article about the personae women are taking on in pop music) has to be a virgin or a whore, that there's no real sliding scale between a woman portrayed as mostly asexual, or a slut, but i very much disagree with that assessment. Take a look at Sex and the City, where each woman was hot (in a different way), each one was quite sexually active (Miranda's periodic droughts notwithstanding), yet none of them were portrayed as "whores," that is, women who lived simply to be sex objects for men. Even the insanely sexually active Samantha demonstrated that she was very much in control of almost all of her encounters. This show is good evidence (though only one piece of evidence), that sexy and sexually active female characters are not necessarily misogynistic in portrayal, and can still be seen as quite empowering.

In video games, Bayonetta is a good example. She's was designed to ooze sexuality, down to the whole "strip for powerful attacks" mechanic, but she defines her own sexuality, she strips to *attack*, notably, not as a sign of submission. She owns her own sexuality and revels in it.

On the other side, we observe Dead Or Alive, especially the Volleyball games. The fighting games, now, are more legitimate because the women are portrayed as fully-fleshed characters, where their sexuality is just a part of who they are. The Volleyball games are all about reducing their stature to mere objects, dating sims and girl/girl shenanigans and buying accessories and all.


Well that puts it in a much better way then i cared to.  

Kudos for working up enough energy.

 

Also note for the class.  Khan watches Queens Blade.