next »

[MeshGearFox]

scrooge mcnooge.

[gimymblert]

Well I'm a HUGE FAN of duckburg too, especially Carl barks (the father) and Keno Don Rosa (spiritual son) and even the other like the italian run ...

He was always indiana jones, in fact one of Scrooge adventure was a big influence of indiana jones' most iconic scene (the chasing boulder: “The Seven Cities of Cibola,” from Uncle Scrooge #7).

He is a capitalist (just like the original scrooge) but with the redeeming part of having a family. The animation do soften him up a lot and the italian one do make it more of an asshole.

http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/12/13/comic-book-urban-legends-revealed-133/


Trivia: I tried to collect all the carl barks and keno don rosa stories when I was younger




Funnily for the movie they come back full circle

[Mittens]

Ah. I think I figured out where we disagree. I don't think that there's any need for sexy/erotic/titillating stuff to be sexist. But if it's sexist, I find it problematic.

I'm confused, the way I see it if something is erotic material then it has be presenting an erotic subject, as objectified, to the intended audience so they can lust for that subject, the subject has no say in it.
Doesn't that in itself always make it sexist to the erotic objectified subject?

For example, we don't call every film an erotic film, because there's no rule to say that an ordinary action film will have a sex scene in it, but that doesn't mean it wont have, half the time action flicks will have a sex scene.
If we call a movie and erotic movie, that would mean that it's something you are seeing with certainty of explicit material for the sole purpose of sexual gratification.

So I think if you're making an erotic game about women, that means the women in the game WILL be there for your sexual gratification, they will be objects of lust, they won't have the choice not to be, they won't have any other way to present themselves because they are made as sex objects and nothing more.
If these women were programmed with the potential to not present themselves sexually at all or choose not to interact with the player then the game wouldn't be an erotic game anymore, it would be a regular game with the potential to have a sex scene, right?

[gimymblert]

There is a reason why BAYONETTA is a sexy game yet feminist defended it from being "sexist".

Sexy isn't automatically sexist, I already explain that before in details

[MeshGearFox]

Dickburg.

[MeshGearFox]

We should have a nude selfie thread only the twist is that you have to be covered in blood.

[gimymblert]

already happen in the drome

[ProgramGamer]

We should have a nude selfie thread only the twist is that you have to be covered in blood.

already happen in the drome

O_o excuse me what?

[Mittens]

There is a reason why BAYONETTA is a sexy game yet feminist defended it from being "sexist".

Sexy isn't automatically sexist, I already explain that before in details

Yeah, i get that sexy doesn't equal sexist, but bayonetta is not an erotic game.
As far as I can currently understand, something wanting to be called erotic has to also be sexist by definition.
Unless someone can clarify

[Dacke]

I'm confused, the way I see it if something is erotic material then it has be presenting an erotic subject, as objectified, to the intended audience so they can lust for that subject, the subject has no say in it.
Doesn't that in itself always make it sexist to the erotic objectified subject?

That's one possible definition of objectification. But if you use that definition, then most objectification isn't sexist. The simplest counter example would be me sharing nude pictures of myself, which would be objectification under that definition but certainly wouldn't be problematic/sexist (regardless of my gender).

Sometimes this is the way objectification is discussed, where some consider it objectification but simply say that objectification doesn't have to be a problem. It may just be indicative of one.

But objectification can also be defined in a more nuanced way, that looks at multiple factors.

Here is one possible definition, that looks at a number of factors:

    instrumentality: the treatment of a person as a tool for the objectifier's purposes;
    denial of autonomy: the treatment of a person as lacking in autonomy and self-determination;
    inertness: the treatment of a person as lacking in agency, and perhaps also in activity;
    fungibility: the treatment of a person as interchangeable with other objects;
    violability: the treatment of a person as lacking in boundary-integrity;
    ownership: the treatment of a person as something that is owned by another (can be bought or sold);
    denial of subjectivity: the treatment of a person as something whose experiences and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account.

    reduction to body: the treatment of a person as identified with their body, or body parts;
    reduction to appearance: the treatment of a person primarily in terms of how they look, or how they appear to the senses;
    silencing: the treatment of a person as if they are silent, lacking the capacity to speak.

Using that checklist, it's mostly about giving the characters agency which is an area games can excel in.

But I'm faaaar from an expert on the subject, so I'm not really comfortable explaining it. I think it's pretty likely that I have or will get things wrong.

[ProgramGamer]

Well, I mean, erotic games can also pander to women. An erotic game is about sexual arousal, right? So by definition, an erotic game is not necessarily sexist, even though most of them often fall into that trap.

Edit:

    instrumentality: the treatment of a person as a tool for the objectifier's purposes;
    denial of autonomy: the treatment of a person as lacking in autonomy and self-determination;
    inertness: the treatment of a person as lacking in agency, and perhaps also in activity;
    fungibility: the treatment of a person as interchangeable with other objects;
    violability: the treatment of a person as lacking in boundary-integrity;
    ownership: the treatment of a person as something that is owned by another (can be bought or sold);
    denial of subjectivity: the treatment of a person as something whose experiences and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account.

    reduction to body: the treatment of a person as identified with their body, or body parts;
    reduction to appearance: the treatment of a person primarily in terms of how they look, or how they appear to the senses;
    silencing: the treatment of a person as if they are silent, lacking the capacity to speak.

And I thought objectification was limited to finding someone sexy. People should really clarify that definition more often.

[Pfotegeist]

Yeah, i get that sexy doesn't equal sexist, but bayonetta is not an erotic game.
As far as I can currently understand, something wanting to be called erotic has to also be sexist by definition.
Unless someone can clarify

sexism stemming from sexuality requires stereotyping. fetishes are erotic, only mainstreamed fetishes are sexist. gender is the de-facto mainstream fetish. there's also celebrity fetishism and fashion, two things that are mainstream that are hugely ignored because they're not supposed to exist. By not exist I mean they're an invention.

[gimymblert]

Sexism isn't about sex, sex is just a small part of the tools use to reduce someone based on her gender.

Sex isn't sexism, but sexism USE sex.

Sexism is the idea that someone can be discriminate because of her gender, or to put that person down. Saying you "run like a girl" to mean you perform badly is sexism.

Objectification is generally use to reduce a person and deny agency. It's not the sexualization that is at fault but the effect of sexualization.

The problem for example is when you don't believe a woman's experience under the pretense it's a woman (weird logic), so when women tell you it's embarrassing, you can't reinvent the dictionary to prove her wrong, that's sexist and it's not the point, an experience is not a mental construct.

@Pfotegeist
you can't make up definition out of your ass

[Pfotegeist]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexism

the definition is sexist AND vague what 'sex' means

[ProgramGamer]

So as long as my portrayal of women in my game doesn't put them down or objectify them I can use sexyness all I want?

[Dacke]

And I thought objectification was limited to finding someone sexy. People should really clarify that definition more often.

Nah, it doesn't even have to include attraction. Here is a post that explains the difference between objectification and desire. Including an example of objectification unrelated to sexuality or desire:

I’ve been objectified by men while I was wearing long, loose tunics and skirts topped by carefully-draped headscarves: I was asked if I was a “total freak under that thing”, the last word punctuated by an unmistakable gesture towards my scarf.

So as long as my portrayal of women in my game doesn't put them down or objectify them I can use sexyness all I want?

I don't think there is a simple checklist of things to avoid, it's much more complex than that. If you read the dialog I linked earlier it goes into some of the nuances of creating exclusionary universes, maintaining the status quo, etc.. But sure, having lots of sexy sex and sexiness doesn't have to be a problem at all.

[Pfotegeist]

If sexual gratification wasn't the problem then we can't go wrong. However, a frying pan cleaver = sexism

So as long as my portrayal of women in my game doesn't put them down or objectify them I can use sexyness all I want?

I'm curious about that too. But there's contrary evidence



People will make a big deal of it, even if it's ok. *shrug*. this is my second edit

[MeshGearFox]

I feel like an object sometimes.

[absolute8]

It's a power and consent deal. If it appears as though the character doesn't have power over their sexuality -- being controlled by another character or the creator them-self for gratuitous gratification, then it's an issue. Then it is potentially sexist.

Furthermore, if a character is portrayed as a soulless automaton/idiot rigged for gratuitous pleasure, that is also potentially sexist depending on the context.

[Pfotegeist]

@gim your explanation sounds perfectly reasonable. as more people talk about it the written definition is amended. We're both expressing its meaning based on some experience. It is very much the tip of the iceberg from my point of view, the original topic about sexuality has potential because it's a pillar that holds sexism high where it can't be touched. I'm going to sit back and see where this goes for a while.