Why women criticise sexualised character designs (READ OP)

Good God just coming back to this thread and lurking... I have no idea how you ladies (and gents and others supporting them) put up with the same tired arguments and whataboutisms just sort of re-branded. Godspeed to you, y'all have the patience of saints.

Weltall Zero said:

Yeah, about that... I have two questions for you:
1) Do you believe men and women should be treated equally?
2) Do you believe women are being treated worse than men in modern society?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I know what you are about to say, but feminism does not mean just believing that.

There are many definitions of feminism, but the most common is "the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes."

Emphasis on the word advocacy, meaning that you actively support a cause.

It's like saying you were a civil rights advocate, despite never marching in any protest or adding anything significant to it.

I support the two things you said, but I wouldn't consider myself a feminist cause I'm not marching or protesting about these issues because I've got much more pressing stuff to deal with in life.

Not everybody actively advocates for a cause, so most people would not be considered feminist( or advocates for any social movememt).

Cinemikel said:

The really weird thing about Xenoblade 2s terrible female blade designs is that like 60%+ of what people hate in terms of sexualization is all made from females themselves, including some of the creepy loli butt girls. It's just so weird

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

You mean Pyra was designed by a woman on Monolith Soft's team?

a harmless rabbit said:

The things you like wouldn't, inherently, be a problem if they were mirrors of a suitable alternative for female [edit: rather, male-attracted] demographics in niches where they belong, and weren't so pervasive in mainstream-targeted products. This isn't a fight to make titillating games disappear entirely, it's a fight to make developers realize that there's a time and a place for titillation and Literally All the Time and Everywhere isn't that time and place.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Cinemikel said:

The really weird thing about Xenoblade 2s terrible female blade designs is that like 60%+ of what people hate in terms of sexualization is all made from females themselves, including some of the creepy loli butt girls. It's just so weird

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

It's not all that weird, it's just a different culture. A lot of that is considered to be cute, even if it is pretty revealing.

D.A. said:

Here's the thing. Women happen to have such bodies, but they're not the only ones with said bodies, there are works of art that share said body type. Statues, dolls, drawings, all manner of art shares possession of said bodies. The female body design is public domain, it belongs to no group.

Eventually there will likely be fully functional indistinguishable objects whose sole purpose is to serve and please. Barring legal issues, these objects will share the same human body design used by humans.

If I happened to look like a broom, it matters little if I predate the broom. The broom would be an object that just so happens shares my appearance. When people talk of brooms or use brooms, I shouldn't be offended by such.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Is it just me or are the legit unique arguments getting more... abstract? I mean what in the FUCK am I reading here?!

HypedBeast said:

What's wrong with Master Raven?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I mean just compare her to regular raven.

Cinemikel said:

The really weird thing about Xenoblade 2s terrible female blade designs is that like 60%+ of what people hate in terms of sexualization is all made from females themselves, including some of the creepy loli butt girls. It's just so weird

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Not really, remember that objectification does not have to come from men alone. They can come from women as well. It usually isn't even on purpose for both.

Also, which blades in particular?

Akainu said:

I mean just compare her to regular raven.

Spoiler

I'm just happy we finally have a black female in tekken.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Master Raven is suppose to be a Kunoichi (female ninja), so her design is kind of cybernetic version of that, think Ibuki.

Some people (concern-trolls or otherwise) want to see recent research about sexualization in media and games. Sometimes said people are lazy about looking up this type of research. I thought it might be good to start listing the relevant literature. Maybe some future scientists will feel inspired to do further work in this area.

Here is a short paper from March 2017, published in Frontiers in Psychology: Video Games Exposure and Sexism in a Representative Sample of Adolescents. Abstract:

Research has indicated that many video games are saturated with stereotypes of women and that these contents may cultivate sexism. The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship between video game exposure and sexism for the first time in a large and representative sample. Our aim was also to measure the strength of this association when two other significant and well-studied sources of sexism, television exposure and religiosity, were also included in a multivariate model. A representative sample of 13,520 French youth aged 11–19 years completed a survey measuring weekly video game and television exposure, religiosity, and sexist attitudes toward women. Controlling for gender and socioeconomic level, results showed that video game exposure and religiosity were both related to sexism. Implications of these results for future research on sexism in video games are discussed.

I am not in psychology. I cannot vouch for the credibility of this journal or the authors' work. However, it appears to me to be a valuable starting point. Many relevant works are cited, and the authors point out the need to move toward a causality model. It would be great to see more scientific work done on this topic, in other fields as well. The preliminary evidence presented in this paper suggests, at a minimum, something worth investigating further. Arguments about external validity aside, the authors demonstrate a strong empirical relationship between sexist attitudes and exposure to video games within their large sample, controlling for other known sources of sexism.

D.A. said:

The female body design is public domain, it belongs to no group.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I just...I can't.

a harmless rabbit said:

This isn't a fight to make titillating games disappear entirely, it's a fight to make developers realize that there's a time and a place for titillation and Literally All the Time and Everywhere isn't that time and place.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Are you referring to characters not being sexualised for the entirety of a game, or for the industry as a whole not sexualising characters as often as they do?

CUD said:

That's fair enough, I can see how those devs that do acknowledge these things may make changes to their games or how they approach game design. The problem I then have is that these devs become concerned of sexualising any character at all. I'm fine with a middle ground where there's more of a balance between characters that present in a sexualised way and ones that do not, I don't think a sexualised character in itself is a bad thing though.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Developers like Kojima will always be around to put fuck puppets in games.

Ogodei said:

You mean Pyra was designed by a woman on Monolith Soft's team?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

No, Pyra's designed by Masatsugu Saito, who was hired to do design work for the main protagonists because Monolithsoft knew they had a problem with transitioning designs to 3D and he's known for doing 3D film design work that has been successful in that regard. Also he's known for porn. Frankly mostly that. It's not pervasive across all of his design work but it certainly shows up in Pyra's design.

There are a number of female guest artists, but I'm fairly certain all of the overtly sexualized women are by male designers. That's not to say that there aren't female designers who do a lot of sexualized work--that came up in a post I made earlier today. Just that I'm fairly certain none of the ones in Xenoblade 2 are.

EDIT: Actually looking back over the roster is that number "one"...? I could swear it was more than just Soraya Saga.

CUD said:

Are you referring to characters not being sexualised for the entirety of a game, or for the industry as a whole not sexualising characters as often as they do?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

In that post I was specifically referring to the latter. My biggest personal issue with sexualization is when it slips into stuff that it isn't a core part of the DNA of. I don't take any issue with stuff that exists for the sake of titillation and indulges in it with no false pretenses.

I take a lot more umbrage with an otherwise completely self-serious JRPG deciding to do a few deliberate upskirt shots than I do with boob ninjas, basically.

I really hope to make a thread as wonderful as this, bring so many people to talk about issues and perspectives about designs, I just made a thread celebrating different and new diverse characters in gaming wh-

Televator said:

Oh great, a separate thread poped up elsewhere to celebrate the "good design" of tit ninjas and lingerie power girls.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

If you are talking about my thread, have some advice; read the OP and see the tone of the conversation and don't make general and fake statements, your credibility could get subzero if you keep adressing other's word into people who were, ironically, celebrating things as women represented in many other attires than just "tit ninjas" or whatever term you used.

But if you want to be ignored you can keep this approach, it's working quite a bit right now!

D.A. said:

Here's the thing. Women happen to have such bodies, but they're not the only ones with said bodies, there are works of art that share said body type. Statues, dolls, drawings, all manner of art shares possession of said bodies. The female body design is public domain, it belongs to no group.

Eventually there will likely be fully functional indistinguishable objects whose sole purpose is to serve and please. Barring legal issues, these objects will share the same human body design used by humans.

If I happened to look like a broom, it matters little if I predate the broom. The broom would be an object that just so happens shares my appearance. When people talk of brooms or use brooms, I shouldn't be offended by such.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I might go to sleep and rethink my life after this read

If only I was able to get rid of this stupid grin on my face first...

Cinemikel said:

The really weird thing about Xenoblade 2s terrible female blade designs is that like 60%+ of what people hate in terms of sexualization is all made from females themselves, including some of the creepy loli butt girls. It's just so weird

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Which designs are you referring to? Pyra was designed by Masatsugu Saito, who is male, and the skating blades were designed Choco. I'm not familiar with Choco (apparently they are a hentai artist?) but I have only seen them referred to as male.

HypedBeast said:

I know what you are about to say, but feminism does not mean just believing that.

There are many definitions of feminism, but the most common is "the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes."

Emphasis on the word advocacy, meaning that you actively support a cause.

It's like saying you were a civil rights advocate, despite never marching in any protest or adding anything significant to it.

I support the two things you said, but I wouldn't consider myself a feminist cause I'm not marching or protesting about these issues because I've got much more pressing stuff to deal with in life.

Not everybody actively advocates for a cause, so most people would not be considered feminist( or advocates for any social movememt).

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Woah, I disagree with this interpretation.

Advocating doesn't mean you need to go to rallies. Discussing the topic on a forum or with a curious friend would count as advocating.
Even then, I don't believe you need to share your views with anyone. As long you you hold these beliefs that should be enough.

Maybe I'm off-base here. I just don't like the idea that you could call someone a fake feminist because they don't put enough work in.

CUD said:

Seeing that comparison of the male characters definitely does make it clear the direction they were going with their female characters.

I certainly can't argue that it doesn't happen in games, I just don't think it's that big an issue nor is it an issue that we can realistically resolve. That isn't to dismiss those that do see it as an issue, that's just my perspective.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Do you feel it is your place to determine the size of the issue?

Is coming into a thread about a demographic you aren't a part of, and declaring that said demographic thinks it is too big of an issue, somehow NOT dismissive in your mind?

Cinemikel said:

The really weird thing about Xenoblade 2s terrible female blade designs is that like 60%+ of what people hate in terms of sexualization is all made from females themselves, including some of the creepy loli butt girls. It's just so weird

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Whether an artist creating a work is male/female/other is not relevant to the effect of the work in the greater world/industry. Using female artists as a shield to excuse sexualization is inappropriate because it dismisses the context of art.

Dmax3901 said:

Still catching up on this thread but just wanted to say that this post is fantastic, thank you.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I had missed it, thanks for bringing attention to it. This bit in particular should be framed and put on every wall:

a harmless rabbit said:

This isn't a fight to make titillating games disappear entirely, it's a fight to make developers realize that there's a time and a place for titillation and Literally All the Time and Everywhere isn't that time and place.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Such a perfectly succint way to convey what we're all trying to say; I really can't imagine anyone reading that and not getting the point. Then again mankind finds way to disappoint me daily...

HypedBeast said:

I know what you are about to say, but feminism does not mean just believing that. There are many definitions of feminism, but the most common is "the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes."

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Hold that thought. The relevant definition here is feminist, not feminism.

feminist
ˈfɛmənɪst/
noun

1. 1.
   a person who supports feminism.

adjective

1. 1.
   relating to or supporting feminism.
   "feminist literature"

"Advocacy" and "support" may be nebulously defined terms: for you it might mean participating in protests, for me it might mean posting in a forum and talking to my acquaintances; for another person it might mean simply agreeing with the core ideas. But feminism is an ideology, and the only requisite for being a feminist is sharing that ideology. If you reject that definition, you're rejecting a vast amount of the people who indentify as feminists.

CannonFodder52 said:

Woah, I disagree with this interpretation.

Advocating doesn't mean you need to go to rallies. Discussing the topic on a forum or with a curious friend would count as advocating.
Even then, I don't believe you need to share your views with anyone. As long you you hold these beliefs that should be enough.

Maybe I'm off-base here. I just don't like the idea that you could call someone a fake feminist because they don't put enough work in.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I guess we have to agree to disagree here.

As someone whose grandfather was a Black Panther, I feel action matter a hell of a lot more than words.

Now of course I don't feel you have to go to rallies or publish feminist literature, posting online can be good enough. However, just believing is not enough cause no one can read your thoughts, no one knows you believe it, we can only infer from your actions.

I would call myself an allie to feminist, but I would not call myself a feminist.

Man I love the highlighting quote feature.

Biggui4yew said:

This is the thing I've been seeing lately that instead of gamers having fun with different games, people have to bring politics into things and dictate whether this or that is bad.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I missed this part initially until Crossing Eden mentioned it.

I actually see where you're coming from and I think that's a problem with a lot of people. They have fond memories of just playing games as kids not worrying about any possible social issues and so that's where the whole "Gah! These FEMALES are trying to ruin what I have fond memories growing up with."

I mean let me put it this way. My Uncle REALLY likes the shows he grew up with, he prefers watching those shows over trying anything new. It can be annoying living with him (it's a long story there, I'm not going to go into it). He really likes Lone Ranger and tells me all the time how excited he was as a kid to watch it and that's why he watches it. He loves reveling in the nostalgia. My sister gets more annoyed at seeing all the doting, submissive women that tend to be easy damsels.

Have you seen Lone Ranger? It really hasn't aged well. Tonto is definitely up there as one the most infamous of old stereotypes. Could you imagine being a Native American watching that in its heyday? Thankfully, things have gotten better. If you were to bring the subject up to my uncle he'd probably just have this dodgy "Well.... Yeah... But that's just how it was back then." My mom (her brother) said to me once on the subject, "There were a lot of things we grew up with that were awful there was a lot of stuff that was great. There are things now that are great, and there a lot of things now that are awful."

Great stuff, huh? She was a mythology major who took pride in picking apart costumes for practicality and authenticity in stuff we watched which is most likely the reason I don't easily fall for dumb designs.

I don't think my uncle is necessarily racist or anything, he just holds on way too tight to that childhood nostalgia because back then he was a kid who watched the good guys beat the bad guys.

Now I don't want to speak for the women in this thread (and feel free to tell me to gtfo if need be) but that's how I see this. I want to go on a limb and say it's kinda like that. The world of gaming is bigger than what men feel. There are different perspectives. It's not about putting those games you love so much under a microscope and tearing them apart with their flaws, it's about making them better for more people (namely women) to enjoy them.

Luulubuu said:

If you are talking about my thread, I give you some advice; read the OP and see the tone of the conversation and don't make general and fake statements, your credibility could get subzero that way :D

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I'm afraid this passive-agressive (if not downright threatening) post hasn't done your own credibility any favors...

D.A. said:

Eventually there will likely be fully functional indistinguishable objects whose sole purpose is to serve and please. Barring legal issues, these objects will share the same human body design used by humans.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Just trying to understand what you're saying...

Basically, artificial intelligence will reach a point where objects exist whose appearance is indistinguishable from that of humans? The thing is, that actually raises more moral questions, not fewer...I do sort of get what you're pointing to, though it seems secondary to the main point of the thread. There may come a future when we can accept all bodies as mere objects, because they have no bearing or permanence with relation to our consciousness. For instance, if I could transfer my sentience between any manner of different physical forms, then maybe there isn't something inherently special or important to protect about a given one of those forms. But that doesn't help with the world we currently live in, where we have very little autonomy over our physical manifestations and, as a result, those are often intimately connected with our sense of identity and personhood.

Weltall Zero said:

I'm afraid this passive-agressive (if not downright threatening) post hasn't done your own credibility any favors...

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I disagree, not the subject of the this thread though, I came to see why my thread about diversity and good work about designing was being falsely advertised, I defended it how you take it is up to them, at least I have the decency to come directly though, and nah is not threating I don't have need or intentions of doing such thing

Weltall Zero said:

But feminism is an ideology, and the only requisite for being a feminist is sharing that ideology. If you reject that definition, you're rejecting a vast amount of the people who indentify as feminists.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

You're damn straight I'm rejecting a lot of people who identify as feminist.

Every one wants to be a feminist, but now everyone want to put in the effort of actually being a part of the conversation on a vast scale.

Mind you I'm not saying you have to participate in rallies. Anita Sarkessian and Jonathan McIntosh are definitely feminist cause they advocate their cause through video essays and public speaking arrangements.

If you are talking about feminism on social media and bringing awareness to it, you could be considered a feminist.

But simply sharing the ideology? I disagree.

I mean a lot of people call themselves Christians, but their actions demonstrate they don't feel all that strongly about the dogma cause they do things contradictory to Christaindom.

Like I said in my other post, I would consider myself an allie to feminism, but I don't identify as feminist.

Double post

Okay, my apologies. I was incorrect with the 60% thing. I mistook the sheet list of blades with people who are attached to them and thought they were the artists. That's incorrect, they are the voice actors. However I did do some research and attempted to look into who designed what blades.

These blades in Xenoblade 2 were designed by female designers as far as my knowledge goes:

There are many valid games that I discarded because of over the top and completely stupid sexualization.

It makes me feel uncomfortable playing one, let's say, on a portable console in the train! It actually makes me uncomfortable playing such games when I'm alone too.

That's where I completely agree with the OP.

A revealing female character can have its place at the right time, but when they forcefully show it to your face with no apparent reasons it really annoys me.

If I'm playing "Sailor Moon the videogame" I don't mind their sailor suit.

If I'm playing Dragon Crown and I see a Sorceress or an Amazoness I facepalm.

I see that they wanted to recreate a "Conan the Barbarian" era of female and male chracters, still, why the Amazoness ass must be he focus of the sprite? Have her fighting in a bikini chainmail would be tollerable atleast with a different focus.

Now, I want to reistate that I'm not a feminist. This is to show that you don't have to be one to understand why this form of sexualization is annoying. And I'm not one because I'm a moderare person myself, having a set of opinions that sometimes agree with a movement but sometimes disagree.

I often find myself in the position of being attacked by both sides for expressing my opinions. (Thing is, as a moderate, I really dislike the thought of "either with us or versus us". I strongly believe you can moderately support something without embracig it completely)

And people that can't see that (the annoying sexualization of certain characters) please make an effort.

Luulubuu said:

I really hope to make a thread as wonderful as this, bring so many people to talk about issues and perspectives about designs, I just made a thread celebrating different and new diverse characters in gaming wh-


If you are talking about my thread, have some advice; read the OP and see the tone of the conversation and don't make general and fake statements, your credibility could get subzero if you keep adressing other's word into people who were, ironically, celebrating things as women represented in many other attires than just "tit ninjas" or whatever term you used.

But if you want to be ignored you can keep this approach, it's working quite a bit right now!

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

You were being ironic about Pyra... or all the examples? I'm having some difficulty making sense of your post, except for the part where you want to put me on ignore.

Luulubuu said:

I disagree, not the subject of the this thread though,

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Ya think? :P

HypedBeast said:

You're damn straight I'm rejecting a lot of people who identify as feminist.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Hopefully you also realize how that would be offensive for many feminists, including many of those who actually qualify as "true feminists" by your narrow standards, protests and all. Who bestowed the power to you, a self described "non-feminist", to be the gatekeeper of the term?

I saw that, selina.

XD

And I was just gonna obey, too.

If you're a man and sympathize with feminism then simply listen to what women have to say about these issues and help their views spread to places where you, as a man, hold more power than then. That much should be good enough whether you care about "being a feminist" or not because in men's case actions speak louder than words.

Noll said:

Now, I want to reistate that I'm not a feminist.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Seems to me you are a textbook feminist: you just may have bought into the ancient, reactionary rethoric that feminists are this fabled ultra-radical group of bra-burning, nut-kicking extremists. Realize this rethoric has precisely that purpose: to make "feminist" an alien, scary term that people won't want to identify with, because otherwise most rational people with a shred of empathy would do so; a nightmare scenario for those actually happy with the status quo.

If you believe in feminism (the notion that women are, and should not be, treated unjustly by society), you're a feminist. It's really that simple.

Edit: And it just dawned to me that the fact people have a hard time grasping why something so obvious would merit a label such as "feminist", is that they lack the historic perspective to realize that, not that long ago, most people didn't actually believe women were mistreated by society even though things were much worse back then, and even more shockingly, go a bit further back and even the notion that women are equal to men wasn't taken for granted or even widespread (!). For example, the right for women to vote came about in most countries around 1910-1920. That means that if you're just a bit older than I am, your grandmother might not have been allowed to vote when they came of age. The point is to remember that "feminism" was radical, because thinking that women should be treated equally was radical.

Weltall Zero said:

Hopefully you also realize how that would be offensive for many feminists, including many of those who actually qualify as "true feminists" by your narrow standards, protests and all. Who bestowed the power to you, a self described "non-feminist", to be the gatekeeper of the term?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

In the context of who you were responding to you asked him did he believe the two statements you put forth

1) Do you believe men and women should be treated equally?

2) Do you believe women are being treated worse than men in modern society?

In my opinion Im saying that is not enough to be called a feminist.

You mentioned the word support, and support means to give assistance to. If the guy you were responding to dosent really support the cause (talk about it, advocate) then he wouldn't be a feminist by the definition.

Also being a feminist is a form of activism. Meaning you actively campaign for social or political change.

I love animals but I wouldn't call myself an animal rights activist cause I'm not actively fighting for the rights of animals, you see where I'm coming from.

To conclude, I'm not bestowing anything to anyone, However I did see what you were about to do.

You were going to have him answer those two statements, he would say he agrees, you say he a feminist, he says he dosent identify as one, and you ask why is he so scared to be called a feminist.

Now if you weren't about to do that I apologize, but I've seen that way of arguing many times before.

Edit: Damn I was right on the money, your next post verifies that.

weemadarthur said:

Whether an artist creating a work is male/female/other is not relevant to the effect of the work in the greater world/industry. Using female artists as a shield to excuse sexualization is inappropriate because it dismisses the context of art.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Yeah that's not at all what I was saying, but nice try, mate. Its just weird that they would create such garbage character designs like I posted above ^^

A trash dog stripper hybrid disaster and a navel exposed, short skirted loli.

Lolis should be banned from existence. They're cringey, embarrassing, down right uncomfortable "things".

Televator said:

You were being ironic about Pyra... or all the examples? I'm having some difficulty making sense of your post, except for the part where you want to put me on ignore.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I can't really tell much about Pyra, I laughed a lot when they showed their boob jiggle in that gif, probably has been linked here many times already, I like some aspects of her and she is growing on me, however I still feel her design just too much in some regards. Problem is that you made a very bad take on my thread. My thread was meant to give some highlight about recent game designs like for example Ana from Overwatch which is an elderly woman in a shooter online.

Which I find just superb.

So you have to understand that when someone links to me that my thread is celebreating tit ninjas when the whole OP was going for a different direction is a bit harsh.

And no, I'm not putting you in ignore! I just wanted to clarify this specific issue, I strongly recommend you to read the OP and some of the suggestions, not only cute as "women being cute" but other designs. My thread is a celebration of non canonical and diverse designs, if people want to transform it into a waifu thread there's little I can do, it was not the intention at all .c

HypedBeast said:

Also being a feminist is a form of activism. Meaning you actively campaign for social or political change.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

No, feminism doesn't necessarily have to include activism.

weemadarthur said:

Do you feel it is your place to determine the size of the issue?

Is coming into a thread about a demographic you aren't a part of, and declaring that said demographic thinks it is too big of an issue, somehow NOT dismissive in your mind?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

What I'm saying is that I personally feel it's something that is overplayed, I don't view that as being dismissive. People can tell me otherwise and we can then discuss it, that's how a forum works, or at least how it should work.

Are you really arguing that I can't disagree because I'm not a woman? That seems awfully dismissive of you.

Cinemikel said:

Yeah that's not at all what I was saying, but nice try, mate. Its just weird that they would create such garbage character designs like I posted above ^^

A trash dog stripper hybrid disaster and a navel exposed, short skirted loli.

Lolis should be banned from existence. They're cringey, embarrassing, down right uncomfortable "things".

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Ok.
I don't disagree about lolis, for sure.

I'll leave the statement though; while it may not apply to you personally, it still applies to the thread.

Cinemikel said:

Yeah that's not at all what I was saying, but nice try, mate. Its just weird that they would create such garbage character designs like I posted above ^^

A trash dog stripper hybrid disaster and a navel exposed, short skirted loli.

Lolis should be banned from existence. They're cringey, embarrassing, down right uncomfortable "things".

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

It's not weird at all when you consider that at the end of the idea someone has creative control and is dictating what must be done by the art team, regardless of gender.

Cinemikel said:

Yeah that's not at all what I was saying, but nice try, mate. Its just weird that they would create such garbage character designs like I posted above ^^

A trash dog stripper hybrid disaster and a navel exposed, short skirted loli.

Lolis should be banned from existence. They're cringey, embarrassing, down right uncomfortable "things".

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I mean, even comparing them to Choco's...let's say blatant designs, you can see clear differences. Neither character contorts themselves in a drastic way to do a boobs-and-butt pose like some of the other designs and even the dog character, which has skimpy clothing isn't posed to explose cleavage. It's still bad design-wise, but from the angle alone its better than most of the rest of the rare blades...which is kind of pathetic, if you ask me.

Edit:

Crossing Eden said:

It's not weird at all when you consider that at the end of the idea someone has creative control and is dictating what must be done by the art team, regardless of gender.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

This too.

HypedBeast said:

I love animals but I wouldn't call myself an animal rights activist cause I'm not actively fighting for the rights of animals, you see where I'm coming from.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I would if we were discussing the definition of "feminism activist". Which, come to think of, seems to be what you believe "feminist" to mean.

Look, you have a different definition of feminism than most dictionaries and most feminists. That's OK, nobody can take that away from you. Just don't push that definition on others.

HypedBeast said:

In the context of who you were responding to you asked him did he believe the two statements you put forth

1) Do you believe men and women should be treated equally?

2) Do you believe women are being treated worse than men in modern society?

In my opinion Im saying that is not enough to be called a feminist.

You mentioned the word support, and support means to give assistance to. If the guy you were responding to dosent really support the cause (talk about it, advocate) then he wouldn't be a feminist by the definition.

Also being a feminist is a form of activism. Meaning you actively campaign for social or political change.

I love animals but I wouldn't call myself an animal rights activist cause I'm not actively fighting for the rights of animals, you see where I'm coming from.

To conclude, I'm not bestowing anything to anyone, However I did see what you were about to do.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I dunno man. If you believe in woman's rights, and you aren't a terf or a "white feminist" then you're all good.

Obviously if you don't want the label that's cool. But your incredibly ridged definition of a feminist doesn't benefit anyone.

Morrigan said:

No, feminism doesn't necessarily have to include activism.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I guess I'm viewing more as a political movement rather than as a ideology.

Just because someone says they respect women dosent mean they will share the same values as you do or even agree with most of what you say.

CUD said:

What I'm saying is that I personally feel it's something that is overplayed, I don't view that as being dismissive. People can tell me otherwise and we can then discuss it, that's how a forum works, or at least how it should work.

Are you really arguing that I can't disagree because I'm not a woman? That seems awfully dismissive of you.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

How do you feel about what the OP states about her emotional responses to sexualization? Does it affect your view of whether the issue is "big" or not?

And no, I wasn't suggesting you couldn't disagree. Only that given the thread title, it might be ...off topic. How many pages of the thread have you, personally, read, please? I ask because I'm wondering if the dialogue that has happened so far has had any effect on your viewpoint.

CannonFodder52 said:

Obviously if you don't want the label that's cool. But your incredibly ridged definition of a feminist doesn't benefit anyone.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I dunno man, that just seems like a really broad way of defining feminism.

I mean by that logic most people are feminist, but just don't identify as such.

D.A. said:

Here's the thing. Women happen to have such bodies, but they're not the only ones with said bodies, there are works of art that share said body type. Statues, dolls, drawings, all manner of art shares possession of said bodies. The female body design is public domain, it belongs to no group.

Eventually there will likely be fully functional indistinguishable objects whose sole purpose is to serve and please. Barring legal issues, these objects will share the same human body design used by humans.

If I happened to look like a broom, it matters little if I predate the broom. The broom would be an object that just so happens shares my appearance. When people talk of brooms or use brooms, I shouldn't be offended by such.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I mean a lot of thread has been utter shit but this is some shit.

Cinemikel said:

Yeah that's not at all what I was saying, but nice try, mate.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I don't have a clue where this came from. They were just pointing out that the discussion of whether they were designed by men or women is less important than people think, for multiple reasons.

Personally, and this might seem un-feministic and controversial, but I think the foremost reason is simply that women can be sexist, the same way that men can be feminists. Gender alone doesn't bestow omniscience or infallibility, especially without sufficient information or context to contrast alternatives. To tie in with my post above, just ask all the women a century ago that agreed that, of course, women should not vote.

HypedBeast said:

I mean by that logic most people are feminist, but just don't identify as such.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

It's almost as if that was precisely my point.

Once more, with feeling:

Weltall Zero said:

And it just dawned to me that the fact people have a hard time grasping why something so obvious would merit a label such as "feminist", is that they lack the historic perspective to realize that, not that long ago, most people didn't actually believe women were mistreated by society even though things were much worse back then, and even more shockingly, go a bit further back and even the notion that women are equal to men wasn't taken for granted or even widespread (!). For example, the right for women to vote came about in most countries around 1910-1920. That means that if you're just a bit older than I am, your grandmother might not have been allowed to vote when they came of age. The point is to remember that "feminism" was radical, because thinking that women should be treated equally was radical.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

weemadarthur said:

How do you feel about what the OP states about her emotional responses to sexualization? Does it affect your view of whether the issue is "big" or not?

And no, I wasn't suggesting you couldn't disagree. Only that given the thread title, it might be ...off topic. How many pages of the thread have you, personally, read, please? I ask because I'm wondering if the dialogue that has happened so far has had any effect on your viewpoint.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

This isn't a discussion that is new to me, it's been going on for a number of years now so I've heard plenty of responses on both sides of the issue. I've read perspectives here that are the same as ones I read years ago, my viewpoint that it's not a big deal isn't going to change.

To reiterate, why I feel it's not a big deal is because I don't see sexualised characters as a bad thing in itself and because I don't see a reasonable and realistic solution to this.