Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

I brought this up on the Tsuki Design Controversy page, but I think this could be an interesting topic to discuss on the forums. I don't think I need to explain what a "sexualized" character is, so let's just skip to the topic itself.

Is a fictional female's sexual design always the result of mysogyny and pandering?
In other words, is this

okay?

In my opinion, I don't think the answer is a simple yes or no, as we need to examine the intent behind the character's creation and the context in which they're used. If we look at pretty much any bishoujo harem anime made in the past… pretty much ever, the female characters will always have attractive designs because that's the standard of the genre, to appeal to the presumably male audience ("bishoujo itself translates to "beautiful girl"). It's acceptable to critique the designs themselves and whether or not they appeal to you, but if the entire foundation of the argument is "their butt is too thick" or "their boobs are too big", and you're doing it because it's downright offensive to you, then you're essentially complaining about the grass being green. The intent of the show or game was to tap into a niche (or not so niche) market that's turned on by that. Nobody goes into a hentai expecting an accurate depiction of the female figure. This goes both ways too, as there are plenty of hyper-sexualized male-centric harem properties that don't get as much attention. In other words, they're made to fill a purpose, therefore making it justified. I'll admit that these types of shows aren't really my cup of tea because they're often filled to the brim with awful writing and lackluster characterization, but it's important to know why they exist in the first place.

However, it should be noted that these types of shows and games, the ones that go out of their way to create softcore porn, aren't advertised as heavily as a mainstream product like, say, Xenoblade Chronicles 2, which has… y'know. This is where the line between what's justifiable and what's not begins to blur, and we need to examine the context behind the character and the show once again.

I've gone through several revisions for this topic, and this is the part that's the hardest to talk about because there's always some variable I forget to mention. To paraphrase what I said in the above linked comment, a character's design should be reflective of their personality. I used Camilla, a character I otherwise dislike, as an example, as her fanservicey design is reflective of her sociopathic personality. In other words, the character looks the way they do for a reason, therefore making it justified quality of the character be damned.

However, for me, my above point can easily be lumped together with pandering. This is where even I can't realize my own opinion, but I generally don't consider something to be pandering if I actually like the show as a whole. Hard to talk about.

This is a really hard topic to make sense of, so I'm sorry if I sounded scatter-brained at all in my analysis. What do y'all think? There's always the statement that it's "just a video game", so it can always be said that getting worked up over something so trivial is pointless.

The person who made this character is a woman.

Hmm. That either opens up an entirely different can of worms, or it means this really is a trivial thing to talk about. I'm honestly not sure.

There are few topics I've seen uniformly generate as many online arguments over the years as this one. As such, I'll admit to being a little intimidated to dip my toes in the water, but I'll give it a go. Like in most things, context is king. Faye Valentine from Cowboy Bebop is a sexualized character, but it is justified given her personality. She is a scoundrel who attempts to use her sexuality to influence men into giving her whatever she wants. But for every scene she successfully turns her mark's head, there is another where her attempt fails miserably and the mask of confidence falls, revealing the insecure loser she has become. Similarly, I used to be disturbed by how nearly every early-teenager on Evangelion is heavily sexualized. Then it dawned on me that (merchandise notwithstanding), these depictions were artistically justified. Rei is sexualized to emphasized that she is being exploited, Asuka because she is psychologically unbalanced, and Shinji because he is an awkward teenager. It works.

Meanwhile, Cammy from Street Fighter is a government agent who fights terrorists. Her ass is constantly visible because…gimme dat money. Spider-Woman is a comic series that was explicitly marketed based around female empowerment. Marvel Comics hired a pornographer to illustrate a variant cover showing off her ass because…gimme dat money. Then there's plenty of anime that exude an air of cuteness, but are guaranteed to feature one of the main female characters naked or in her underwear/revealing swimsuit within three episodes (Gochiusa, Konohana Kitan, Sora no Woto, The World God Only Knows, Dagashi Kashi, Kemono Friends) despite it being as odds with the overall tone of the show. It's almost like a formality that the audience has to see the character naked or near-naked just once before the story can truly begin. While it certainly doesn't ruin the experience, it's at least worth an eye-roll.

What I'm trying to say is: at least give us a better reason than "sex sells." Surely you can be more artistic than that.

Depends on what you mean by "justified", cause regardless of the intentions (like a character who uses their sexuality in an assertive way where they're in the position of power to take advantage of people to get what they need/want) or who designs em (like for example Bayonetta, who was designed by a female and meant to be a sort of power fantasy for her in particular, a character that flaunts their sexuality proudly and openly), if a female character's anything below "modest" in regards to her apparel, people are gonna cry sexualization//muhsoggyknees/etc.

So really there's no "justification", because honestly none's needed, especially in a case like this where "justified" is just a matter of a certain group of people's personal approval. If a creator wants a character to be a certain way to serve a certain narrative, then they'll do so. It's their story, and their vision, if someone doesn't approve, then they don't partake, or better yet they make their own.

Its entirely justifiable if they're written well enough. Just because someone is promiscuous doesn't mean they have to be a bimbo. You can have a character that only wears two belts to cover themselves, but so long as they're dynamic and interesting its fine by me.

I do agree that sometimes people can be little bit too miffed by seeing ass and tits in a game or a cartoon, but a character has to be more than that. Having a character who's nothing more than a walking pair of tits is stupid, and can be down right misogynistic in some situations.

This.

tbh, I don't think the problem is what creators do with their own works, (though I can't say I approve of company higher-ups telling creators to pander, if that's a thing that happens), and more that the females are very disproportionately sexualized in games. Like we can go "haha [insert game here] proves sexualizing is equal", but in the end you see wayyy more half-naked women in games.

And to be honest, I think it really comes down to the fact that when games were re-established in the West, nintendo marketed it as a toy and thus had to choose if it was a boy or girl toy, and they chose boy. They heavily marketed games as a guy thing for a long time, and even now rarely market specifically to girls, just to "the family". Meanwhile in Japan it had a lot more to do with otaku culture that lead to both anime and video games sexualizing women. So now the market is predisposed to develop games mainly for guys.

There's some people that argue guys naturally are attracted to games more, but I disagree. While there were some hardcore gamers who got very upset with people equating mobile games and regular games during the gamergate debate, the truth is that mobile games and video games appeal to the very same part of your brain, that enjoys accomplishing tasks even in a fictional world or game. The fact that there is a large female mobile game audience thus proves that video games do not specifically charm boys.

TL;DR we design games that appeal to guys and portray women as sex objects because games are primarily played by guys, because they were initially marketed to guys from the start. We can change this by encouraging women to get into games and dispel old stereotypes that women can't get into nerdy guy interests. But as long as games continue to be made with these standards women can't get into games as well, so there's a feedback loop

There's nothing inherently wrong with a character, male or female, and yes, male characters can and are designed with sex appeal in mind too, being sexy. It's a design choice, and depending on the world around them and the character itself, it can be a good choice or a bad choice. Like it was said earlier, Cammy from Street Fighter's outfit makes no sense for her job or character and thus doesn't fit but that doesn't mean it's immoral, just a bad design choice. The character doesn't even need to be a sex demon or promiscuous really, just that it's not so over the top and unfitting that it becomes distracting or jarring. And no, giving a female character big boobs isn't sexist, big boobed women exist.

You don't need to "justify" anything, you need to sell a product. If your product is successful, then yes, it's "justifiable".

Plus don't forget that women don't like vidya and don't care about vidya, so it's not like they would care.

sexualization only really bothers me if the design looks unnatural (compared to the other characters of the series), the jiggle physics are ridiculous or booby/booty shots are shoved in constantly even in scenes that are supposed to be taken seriously. but even then, as long as the character is there for some actual reason other than to just be faptacular, it's cool.

i believe that instead of bashing fictional big titty bitches and yelling at monitors, it'd be a lot more constructive to shift that energy into making and encouraging the creation of non-sexualized female characters to keep proving that females really can be loved major protagonists without having to flaunt their goodies all the time.

that, or we just make the dudes equally hunky. either way is fine by me.

You people really have not touched the game for a single second have you? The game has every type of blades, from bara to traps to bishi; loli to oppai to milfs; monster girls, furries, human.

I could tell you why even Tora is considered a human but that would give away the entire fucking plot of the game.

Policing what women should and shouldn't wear is what sexism is.

If you think I'm joking even Dromarch is considered to be human even though he's a furry and a blade. During the final cutscene Dromarch, Poppi and such are specifically called "human". Even though Poppi is completely 100% mechanical blade with no biological components she is directly specifically called a human for a very specific reason.

I don't really care man, as long as the character looks good, all is fine

Meanwhile, REAL women in India suffer of real world mysoginy on a daily basis and in the Middle east they get beaten by their husband every day and have to wear full-covering black dresses because their culture says so.

Also, like others said, the one who designed this character is a woman.

I mean subtlety is sometimes needed, I like fanservice but I find it funny so if you want me to take your deep dark story seriously… I haven't played the new xenogears but it feels like it takes itself way to seriously for this level of fanservice. (Still funny to see tumblr "trigered" though).

A character is just as much sexually driven as it's creator.

For me if I'm playing as a female character that i'm looking at for long periods of time, the last thing that I'm worried about is if she is ugly AF. lel

unless you like playing as a BBW fetish

It's cause feminists don't care about other countries.

I've already played through the entire game. It's about as serious as a saturday morning cartoon.

One of the most commonly used phrases in the game is "We'll beat them with the power of friendship" and during the final battle Rex says he plans on befriending the main villain.

@YourHigherBrainFunctions

or you know, because the feminists on the english-speaking web don't live in india and the most they can do is donate to causes there? and feminist causes in other countries are heavily promoted on sites like tumblr yknow. I do hope you're not saying that to care about women's issues you have to literally fly into other countries, abandon your current life, and protest there at risk of being killed.

I never liked this line of reasoning, telling other people what battles they should choose.

"you shouldn't give any attention to this problem, cause there's another problem that's way worse"

It'd be like telling a doctor not to try and cure the flu cause cancer is way worse and he/she should focus their attention on that. People have the right to deal with problems they think are worth dealing with, even if you don't see it that way.

I don't think its fair to make generalizations like that. Feminism isn't some unified organization, its an ideology based on a very broad definition.

Just because a couple of very vocal feminists don't tackle certain issues doesn't mean literally every other feminist won't either.

@tripleA9000

same.

In fact, I'm doing some research on feminism in the third world now since YourHigherBrainFunctions brought it up. In second wave feminism there were quite a few western feminist movements in foreign countries, but the women there didn't care for it. Back then they portrayed women's issues in an overly western perspective, and the women there thought it patronizing that these western women were trying to "save" them from their culture. Modern feminism now focuses more on donating to their causes and asking feminists in those countries what they need.

tl;dr western feminists don't advocate in foreign countries as much anymore because they can end up talking over women who actually live there. Most global advocacy focuses on universally unacceptable things like female trafficking now.

It's an interesting question and reflects the heart of a different question, that of if a representation is a tool to get people to feel a certain way, a reflection of "reality" and therefore good if it does, in fact reflect how reality currently is, or perhaps a model of how reality "ought" to be. I'm really not sure if any of these three lends to the justification or undermines it but the following reflects what I MIGHT say if I were to try to make that attempt.

If I were to try to show the injustice of the current portrayal of women I might say:

It certainly fits the first definition since the whole reason women are portrayed as they are has little to do with how women actually are in current reality. The "tool" part is hardly debatable since it is intended to "draw in" male viewers. The whole fan service question is about exploiting how males respond to sexual visual stimulation. Given that, is it justified? I'll come back to that in a moment.

The second reflection, that it is meant to reflect reality is actually what many are arguing when they say the body of the woman should reflect her personality. I've never met a woman with quite the proportions of some of these characters but I have to wonder if because such a woman has large breasts it automatically means she is highly sexual and would dress in skimpy clothing. Ditto with whatever anatomical part you wish to examine. It seems to me the whole "body"="personality" match is suspect at the get go. And sexist. It's sexist exactly because it judges a persons personality by their body type. In other words it uses outward visible characteristics to predict how the person will act and what they are capable of or not capable of doing. Racism and sexism do the same thing in this regard. I suspect those arguing for such a match might wish to re-think their position. Which leaves the third idea that the images used are a reflection of how a woman "ought" to be.

Sadly, this too, is a bit sexist as it generally sets an anatomically impossible standard. Women are not immune to the effect the images have on males, and while such images do not have the same effect on most women (or the same effect to as high a degree, perhaps) the images to tend to reinforce the stereotypical "model" figure -- except for the breasts, of course. But in general the breasts are the exact problem as they are unrealistic in comparison to the rest of the body.

Now, returning to the question of is it justified, one must have a basis for measuring. If the only purpose of the image is, strictly speaking, to make money, then it's justified, for it does that nicely. But given a broader view, where the purpose is to both make money and increase social justice within society, the stereotypical image used in these graphical representations are anything jut justified.

It is not just to exploit people based upon their sexual drives by implying something you have no intention of delivering. "Sex sells" may be true, but it's not sex you are actually selling, but the stimulation of the sexual appetite -- an appetite you have no intention of actually filing. All forms of selling sex which do not end in sex are therefore, unjustified in that they don't fulfill the implied contract (except prostitution, of course).

It is not just to put forth an image which is not reasonably close to reality unless you explicitly note that you are exaggerating. In other words, an image, as a form of communication, should be true or if it is being used as an exaggeration of the truth, should clearly label itself as hyperbole. The non-necessity of portraying females in this exaggerated manner (except in the case of the first point), means than any exaggeration of her characteristics outside the normal range of actual women, is done purely for impact and is therefore unjustified as it distorts the truth.

It is not just to put forth an to attract males if by doing so you imply the superiority of that body type over others. It is particularly true if the image links "success" in life with having that body type at the expense of other types (as if other types are inferior).

As I said above, I'm trying to make the case as best as I can "on the fly" since I think the whole question is a good one and worthy of examination. Not sure I believe my own rhetoric but at least we can toss it back and forth.

AJ

Oh like fighting anime titties is a cause worth dedicating your life about.

Fighting something to APPEAR more moral doesn't make you a better person.

You mean like how western feminists demand that asian countries stop putting anime titties in video games?
You mean like how western feminists don't consider me a "real woman" cause I'm a transwoman?

"Oh like fighting anime titties is a cause worth dedicating your life about."

I sincerely doubt its something that they've devoted their lives to. I disapprove of a lot of things, but i haven't devoted my life to the majority of them

"Fighting something to APPEAR more moral doesn’t make you a better person"

Never said it did, and unless you can read their minds or you know them i don't think its fair to make assumptions about their motivations.

"You mean like how western feminists demand that asian countries stop putting anime titties in video games?
You mean like how western feminists don’t consider me a “real woman” cause I’m a transwoman?"

Again, you're making an incredibly broad generalization about a very widespread and broad ideology. There are some feminist who subscribe to those ideas, but not all of them do.

@TripleA9000
Origin of third wave feminism:

@YourHigherBrainFunction

That's not an argument, nor is it really evidence of anything.

I could just as easily link an image to the front cover of some tabloid gossip magazine and say "The Origin of Social Decay"

The PERSON who created third wave feminism thought that men were responsible for all the problems in the world, thought that gay men were a threat to women going so far as to try and kill gay men, and thought that men should only be used for reproduction and treated as cattle.

@YourHigherBrainFunctions

honestly, it seems like you've already decided that feminists are inherently immoral people. can't say i agree, but as long as you hold that standpoint I dunno if I can really argue well with you.

for what it's worth, here's why feminists advocate against stuff like this. Feminists tend to view numerous problems that women face today as coming from culture rather than inherent human behavior. The source of opposition here is due to the fact that women disproportionately have low self-esteem about their bodies, and eating disorders like anorexia. Feminism's take on these issues is that it's a result of societal standards of beauty and sexuality not being aligned with the reality and range of female appearance. They see a trend in popular media to show sexualized women in skimpy outfits much more than men in similar states. Their problem is less the existence of media like this, but the prevalence.

The reason they call out specific media is because it's pretty hard to advocate against broad disconnected cultural phenomena. So instead they call out what they perceive to be the extremes of sexuality. This doesn't always work out so well for them, but sometimes they hit a bulls eye. It's very obvious for example, that dead or alive xtreme is softcore pornography in a lot of ways, and even people against feminists on the issue talk more about censorship than trying to justify the contents of the game.

I don't consider myself a feminist, I believe they tend to brush over men's issues a lot and that's very frustrating, but I don't view their issues as illegitimate.

This basically. As long as the design is good, it's fine by me. The design in question though is horrible.

Also, your book you linked is from 1967. Third wave feminism was a movement that started in the 90s. Valerie Solanas would be classified as a second wave feminist, the most radical feminist in the second wave as far as I can tell. She does seem like a terrible person but she apparently wasn't known much until she tried to kill Andy Warhol.

I dunno what your source is for the idea that the woman behind that book "started third wave feminism", but my bet is that source just picked out the most radical feminist they could find and said "yep that's third wave". Most academics seem to source third wave feminism more to riot grrrls (feminist punk bands in the 90s) and a woman named Anita Hill testifying that Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas had sexually harassed her.

To note, some people are also calling this current wave of feminism distinct from the third wave, and now call it fourth wave. So that's interesting.

@documents1
Current feminism is indistinguishable from SWERFs.

@YourHigherBrainFunctions

Personally, I think feminism is just advocating for media that treats women like they can be any kind of person. I don't think they're advocating that sexual ideas about women be eliminated from society in all forms, just that it's far too prevalent to make their sexuality present everywhere. I've seen plenty of feminists these days arguing that's it's okay to have sex toys and all sorts of other sexual topics. But hey, agree to disagree

I'm going to say something really really shitty here: I think the reason why this is getting blown out of proportions is that simply put Nintendo was the single last MAJOR video game company to have a motto of family friendly. In 2016 family entertainment gaming accounted for only 2% of the video game industry with Nintendo being the biggest name still around in that genre.

Without Nintendo E-rated gaming is literally nothing. They are the Cleveland Cavaliers without LeBron James; the Boston Red Sox without Babe Ruth; the Finnish in WWII without Simo Hayha; NATO without the USA; the universe without strong nuclear force.

It kinda boils down to 4 points for me.

• Does the character look their role?
• Does the character's look invalidate the basis of the world or story tone presented?
• Does the character directly or indirectly make a comparison to a functionally similar but visually and/or mechanically "inferior" character (IE: Large breasted girl lording over the Loli)?
• Was the intent of the character's design supposed to be demeaning in general the first place?

If yes to the first two, and no to the second two, then we're good.

Only partly related to the sexualization aspect, but I still feel this is important to point out.

Does the character look their role?
Yes. Blades have a primary use hidden that is essential to the story plot. This is a massive spoiler for the game, but I don't go any further into it but don't read if you don't want any spoilers, blades PRIMARY purpose in actuality is to reproduce and bear children… I am not shitting you; there is a reason why this is and it's a very good reason. If the blades were not created for reproduction the human race would have died out.

Does the character’s look invalidate the basis of the world or story tone presented?
No: see my first point. Blades EXIST to bear children.

Does the character directly or indirectly make a comparison to a functionally similar but visually and/or mechanically “inferior” character (IE: Large breasted girl lording over the Loli)?
There's all sorts of tropes in the game; oppai, loli, oppai loli, traps, bara, furry, etc. The blades come in all flavors and genders.

Was the intent of the character’s design supposed to be demeaning in general the first place?
No. Her purpose design wise is to serve her purpose.

Even-

Purpose is to have children with humans

"Well why is that?"
I could say but it would give away the entire fucking story of the game. Let's just say as I stated before if Blades in the game weren't created for the sole purpose of having children humanity would be dead.
The ONLY two blades in the game who do not exist to have children are Pyra and the villain.

If you think I am joking in the span of about five minutes towards the end they covered how blades exist to have children and that without them humanity would be dead I think twenty times.

If it's the same thing like that guy is saying, why nobody is screaming for Captain America's disproportionate look in the right picture in the same way as the left picture's character?

The fact that people are still arguing that sexualization doesn't fit this story shows that none of you have touched this game for even a iota of a second. Stop trying to bullshit your way into pretending as though you've played the game. You're having a case of dysentery of the mouth and just spewing constant bullshit that doesn't fit the lore at all and it's making you look like a moron. If you want I could tell you the entire story; I've already 100% the game.

"Sex isn't part of the story. Sexualization has no place in the game"
Me:

On the other hand, and this is completely irrelevant I apologize, that game story sounds really silly, I mean really? We created furry and monster girl transhumans so we could reproduce with them? But it isn't like a fetish but to save humanity? And that is why many of them have large boobs? Not important and I am sure it might work in the story, it just sounds really funny.

Pretty much. The reason why "God" did this was that humanity was 100% metaphorically fucked and he wanted to save it in some way. Even Poppi could theoretically could have children and she's 100% mechanical with no organic parts.

Because we already did. Liefeld's name has become synonymous with awful proportions in comic book design for more than a few years. We all mocked him for it. Should another artist get a free pass simply because she's a woman?

It's been stated multiple times:
The person who took that photograph of Dhalia intentionally broke the video game physics to whore for attention.

Her actual in game model doesn't have a broken spine.

But her gigantic tits are a-ok?

The picture is also shot at an angle that exaggerates her boobs

They're big but not unrealistically big and yes, Big Boobs are a-ok

"Can a sexualized female character design be justified?"

That's the title and therefore overall main topic of the thread. Not whether or not it can be justified in one specific game, but in general. The game is just being used as an example.