Jump to content

Is fanservice inherently bad?


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Johann said:

2B I still know little to nothing about, but I recall hearing the creator loves the idea of sexualizing her (something to do with her ass in game?), though that sounds like he just wants people to draw porn of her. Her depiction in the game(s) are what matter most, and I hope that it's positive, but with a creator like that, I'm rather wary.

Yoko Taro is an amazing artist and creator and I will defend him to the day I die. I may only know him through what little I've played of nier automata but from interviews and such I've read from him. He's a man that deserves any respect he garners from what he creates. The man is a genius and deserves respect for that.

20 minutes ago, Johann said:

Bayonetta is rather unique, in that the message is definitely about one of female sexuality and empowerment, but she's still mostly created by a man, and as such is a man's idea of female sexuality and empowerment. It's a curious case where she somehow manages to hop back and forth over (or onto) the line between "made for dudes to jack off to" and "made to give women an iconic game character" depending on what they're having her do.

So what you're saying is just because it's written by a man it doesn't count? Well ain't that a load of BS. Excuse me for being blunt but still that's kind of sexist not gonna lie. Like basically you're saying men can't write female characters here which is not true. Or at least that's what it sounds like to me. 

24 minutes ago, Johann said:

Camilla is trash, I dunno how they manage to one-up themselves every game but they pulled it off with Loki. Yet, I still don't begrudge anyone for liking her, but man oh man was there a missed opportunity. I have seen some impressive fan art of her wearing practical armor and it's downright gorgeous.

It's not the Armour I have a problem with honestly. It's her weird unexplained obsession with Corrin(the avatar I.E you) which makes no sense and just reads like fetish material which is all kinds of stupid. Cause the design itself is fine if only showing a little too much skin but I could look past that if not for the blatantly pandery way she's written. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

7 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

Yoko Taro is an amazing artist and creator and I will defend him to the day I die. I may only know him through what little I've played of nier automata but from interviews and such I've read from him. He's a man that deserves any respect he garners from what he creates. The man is a genius and deserves respect for that.

You'll defend a man you know very little about til the day you die? Don't put creators on pedestals, you're bound to be disappointed by them at some point, whether through their work or through their private lives.

7 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

So what you're saying is just because it's written by a man it doesn't count? Well ain't that a load of BS. Excuse me for being blunt but still that's kind of sexist not gonna lie. Like basically you're saying men can't write female characters here which is not true. Or at least that's what it sounds like to me. 

No, don't misunderstand. I'm saying her being sexually charged and created by a man complicates things. She's an empowered female hero in a straight man's fantasy.

7 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

It's not the Armour I have a problem with honestly. It's her weird unexplained obsession with Corrin(the avatar I.E you) which makes no sense and just reads like fetish material which is all kinds of stupid. Cause the design itself is fine if only showing a little too much skin but I could look past that if not for the blatantly pandery way she's written. 

Yeah that too. Incidentally, in some circles, I've seen Titania be treated as something of a feminist icon in gaming. She's effectively the antithesis of Camilla, after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Johann said:

Yeah that too. Incidentally, in some circles, I've seen Titania be treated as something of a feminist icon in gaming. She's effectively the antithesis of Camilla, after all.

Yes and no.

In terms of straight-up appearance, yes.  In terms of character, not so much (IMO she would've been the natural leader of the Greil Mercenaries, but Ike got it instead.  A more realistic scenario IMO would've been for Titania to temporarily take control, until Ike had a bit more experience - Shinon/Gatrie could still leave for their own reasons).

In terms of in-game usefulness, Camilla wins outright.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/14/2019 at 10:11 AM, Johann said:

Not all art is meant for everyone, yet the overwhelming majority of it is meant for straight men. "Go play something else" ignores that if you want to find a game with good gameplay, story, characters, etc that doesn't sexually objectify women, you won't have a ton of options, especially in certain genres. 

These works aren't created by lone aspiring artists fulfilling their dreams. They're the products of large teams of people working under directors who are ultimately beholden to the management of their company. If the executives tell them to put extra boobs in there, the artists are gonna do it or get replaced by someone who will. I pointed out earlier why this isn't even a great business strategy, so that's not a strong defense.

Getting more female artists is important, but it doesn't stop there. Artists don't have absolute free reign to create whatever they want, they have directors telling them what to create. As such, we need more female directors, as well as writers and other positions of creative control.

Solutions like hiring more women for creative management roles are a valuable way to push back against the sexism that keeps most women from getting hired in the first place. Why are most writers, artists, producers, directors, etc men? What does that do to the industry and market? If you agree that there's an abundance of low quality media, then clearly it's not an issue of hiring based on talent. Having more women with creative control means you get more perspectives, which ultimately means more variety in your media.

Hmm...so I'd like to state this first before I follow up with my counter argument

My perspective of what I'm reading here is this: the industry is corrupt and filled with bad men, so let's remove them and insert females in positions of authority and create and/or support more entertainment industries with female leads so that we get an equal amount (or more female centered work) of art/products so that people who have your perspective can enjoy the same things. So fire emblem games that "respect" women more and doesn't sexually objectify them and more movies, more anime, and etc. 

So my counter argument is broken into two parts. A portion where I agree and then a portion where my skeptical and pragmatic side speak. Emphasis on that fact that I'm not disagreeing, I'm simply stating there isn't anything that can be done about it. 

The portion I agree with is supporting up and coming industries or companies where the work grants complete freedom to the artist (in the event that it is more females, doesn't create sexually objectifying art, and etc) or that is run by women in positions of authority. How that support looks in a physical manifestation? They make products and people choose whether or not to buy them and help them grow. 

I, however, do not agree we should simply replace those corrupt men or otherwise pay any extra help to growing industries with female executives because then that be reverse discrimination. (The part of offering more resources or money to female strong companies). Not to mention if no such company other than the ones someone above me listed exist, it is for a reason. We exist in a time where they simply aren't wanted by the majority. That's why they aren't successful. Handing them the industry will make it tank or go bankrupt and for good reasons. Didn't you mention sex doesn't sell unless it's sex itself. I disagreed with that earlier comment. Sex does sell. Not just to men, women too. You can link all the articles you want and find sources from places that would support your hypothesis all you want but if I decided to go looking, I could probably find an equal amount that support my hypothesis as well. In psych they teach that if you format your hypothesis a certain way, you can always look for evidence that supports your claim but that doesn't make it factual or objective. With that being said, the industry isn't going to change for quite some time. And there isn't anything that can be done about it, even if you went around holding seminars educating people trying to get them to listen to you and learn how current art sexually objectifies women. I only say this lightly since I've never seen any episodes myself, but isn't that why Game of Thrones so popular? All the sex scenes and violence? (Emphasis on sex with the fantasy setting)

The entertainment industry (whether it is movies, books, games, anime, and so forth) is going to continue growing and selling what the audience wants. And majority have spoken. Loud and clear. It's sad to say that this is what they want but that is just the blunt truth.

I sympathize with you (if you can believe it). I really do. But fanservice and sexually objectifying women in art isn't going to go away no matter how much you want it and no matter how unethical or immoral it is. There are some people who have those desires deep down and can only express them by supporting (purchasing) the art itself. At most, we can simply make sure people don't let it crossd over into their attitude and behavior towards women. But even that is a tall task for the uneducated. On a side note, not very many people are lining up to take on that responsibility. Notice how no politicians are talking about it on their campaign trails over the course of our history with elections? There are some causes that have been abandoned even before people became aware of their existence. It's just not a priority in any part of the world. I don't see people talking about it much (in leadership or politics). It's great for discussion here on this thread but what else can we do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/15/2019 at 2:51 PM, eclipse said:

Yes and no.

In terms of straight-up appearance, yes.  In terms of character, not so much (IMO she would've been the natural leader of the Greil Mercenaries, but Ike got it instead.  A more realistic scenario IMO would've been for Titania to temporarily take control, until Ike had a bit more experience - Shinon/Gatrie could still leave for their own reasons).

In terms of in-game usefulness, Camilla wins outright.

Disregarding any comparison to Camilla, viewing Titania as a feminist icon is based on her characteristics, personality, relationships, etc having considerable depth and focus, even if she's not the leader. At no point does her characterization go off the rails into trash territory, she is never subjected to stereotyping, and she has a presence in the story even when she's not driving any of the action. The game itself gives her considerable respect and never takes it back.

There's no sense in comparing Titania and Camilla's fighting ability with each other since they operate with radically different mechanics, but instead they should be compared with the rest of their cast (including enemies). Both are described as powerful combatants, and they live up to that claim (I'm assuming with Camilla since I haven't played Fates).

On 5/17/2019 at 1:29 AM, Tediz64 said:

Hmm...so I'd like to state this first before I follow up with my counter argument

My perspective of what I'm reading here is this: the industry is corrupt and filled with bad men, so let's remove them and insert females in positions of authority and create and/or support more entertainment industries with female leads so that we get an equal amount (or more female centered work) of art/products so that people who have your perspective can enjoy the same things. So fire emblem games that "respect" women more and doesn't sexually objectify them and more movies, more anime, and etc. 

Your take on my post is a bit off; I'm not saying the men behind these decisions are automatically bad and corrupt, but that they are falling into the same trappings of their peers. "Write what you know" is a nice adage, but it doesn't work so great if all you know is trash anime or works that never break from the mold of the industry's latent problems (sexism being one).

On 5/17/2019 at 1:29 AM, Tediz64 said:

So my counter argument is broken into two parts. A portion where I agree and then a portion where my skeptical and pragmatic side speak. Emphasis on that fact that I'm not disagreeing, I'm simply stating there isn't anything that can be done about it. 

The portion I agree with is supporting up and coming industries or companies where the work grants complete freedom to the artist (in the event that it is more females, doesn't create sexually objectifying art, and etc) or that is run by women in positions of authority. How that support looks in a physical manifestation? They make products and people choose whether or not to buy them and help them grow. 

Something to understand is that markets are a lot muddier than how you're describing them. It's incredibly difficult to make a wholly informed decision about what you buy due to many unseen factors; who made it, how, what externalities (wastes, etc) are there, and so on. As such, a lot of harmful industry decisions are capable of promoting growth, while positive ones can bring about decline. For instance, advertising exists to convince you to buy things you don't really need or even want.

On 5/17/2019 at 1:29 AM, Tediz64 said:

I, however, do not agree we should simply replace those corrupt men or otherwise pay any extra help to growing industries with female executives because then that be reverse discrimination.

It's not reverse discrimination, it's the reversal of discrimination. It's called equity. The greater the gender disparity, the more men that got their positions over women because of discrimination. I'll bring up the old quote again: "when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression."

On 5/17/2019 at 1:29 AM, Tediz64 said:

(The part of offering more resources or money to female strong companies). Not to mention if no such company other than the ones someone above me listed exist, it is for a reason. We exist in a time where they simply aren't wanted by the majority. That's why they aren't successful. Handing them the industry will make it tank or go bankrupt and for good reasons. Didn't you mention sex doesn't sell unless it's sex itself. I disagreed with that earlier comment. Sex does sell. Not just to men, women too. You can link all the articles you want and find sources from places that would support your hypothesis all you want but if I decided to go looking, I could probably find an equal amount that support my hypothesis as well. In psych they teach that if you format your hypothesis a certain way, you can always look for evidence that supports your claim but that doesn't make it factual or objective. With that being said, the industry isn't going to change for quite some time. And there isn't anything that can be done about it, even if you went around holding seminars educating people trying to get them to listen to you and learn how current art sexually objectifies women. I only say this lightly since I've never seen any episodes myself, but isn't that why Game of Thrones so popular? All the sex scenes and violence? (Emphasis on sex with the fantasy setting)

This whole paragraph shows a profound lack of understanding of markets and industries. Gonna break it down by point:

  • People like to think they're smarter than the media they consume or the products they buy, that they won't spend their money on junk or whatever. Yet, the entire world economy hinges on companies continually and successfully betting that they can get people to buy their crap, regardless of how good or useful it is. Marketing depends on studying human behavior and steering the decision making of a consumer in ways they aren't even aware of.
  • Read the link I shared before you dismiss it. The point was that sex sells... sex. If you can find some sources that support your claim, go for it. Until then, you're looking pretty silly by writing my link off as confirmation bias when you're relying on "I'm probably right about this"
  • Industries and markets change all the time. Constantly. There are two fairly new big things right now, for instance. One is that companies will hire some savvy young person to run their social media accounts, while characterizing the company in some "relatable" way (like the time Arby's summoned Takumi). The other is how they'll do some form of "woke" ad (like the Gillette one about being better as men), which wins fans from progressives and gets haters riled up and posting hashtags everywhere, causing a lot of people to get that brand on their mind and "hey you know, I do need a new razor". These kinds of marketing choices are probably based on profits, but even still they can have an impact on the way we think about whatever subject they're discussing.
  • There were a lot of things that made Game of Thrones popular, but mostly it's the characters and plots. When people talk about their favorite things in the show, it's about their favorite characters and the big story moments.
On 5/17/2019 at 1:29 AM, Tediz64 said:

The entertainment industry (whether it is movies, books, games, anime, and so forth) is going to continue growing and selling what the audience wants. And majority have spoken. Loud and clear. It's sad to say that this is what they want but that is just the blunt truth.

I sympathize with you (if you can believe it). I really do. But fanservice and sexually objectifying women in art isn't going to go away no matter how much you want it and no matter how unethical or immoral it is. There are some people who have those desires deep down and can only express them by supporting (purchasing) the art itself. At most, we can simply make sure people don't let it crossd over into their attitude and behavior towards women. But even that is a tall task for the uneducated. On a side note, not very many people are lining up to take on that responsibility. Notice how no politicians are talking about it on their campaign trails over the course of our history with elections? There are some causes that have been abandoned even before people became aware of their existence. It's just not a priority in any part of the world. I don't see people talking about it much (in leadership or politics). It's great for discussion here on this thread but what else can we do?

Factoring this in with the stuff above, one of the important things to understands about marketing is that companies are always listening. I don't mean to say they're compassionate, but that, by necessity, they need to understand how people think in order to make their best moves, so they'll gather as much information as they can about their potential customers. This is why Facebook, Google, etc are so rich, and why a lot of people prefer to avoid being connected to everything everywhere. It's why polling and surveys are everywhere, and why data breaches are a big deal.

To say it's not changing shows that you're not really looking very hard; there are increasingly more shows and movies starring women, people of color, LGBTQ people, etc. It's far less pronounced in the mainstream and in video games, but it's happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Johann said:

Disregarding any comparison to Camilla, viewing Titania as a feminist icon is based on her characteristics, personality, relationships, etc having considerable depth and focus, even if she's not the leader. At no point does her characterization go off the rails into trash territory, she is never subjected to stereotyping, and she has a presence in the story even when she's not driving any of the action. The game itself gives her considerable respect and never takes it back.

There's no sense in comparing Titania and Camilla's fighting ability with each other since they operate with radically different mechanics, but instead they should be compared with the rest of their cast (including enemies). Both are described as powerful combatants, and they live up to that claim (I'm assuming with Camilla since I haven't played Fates).

She seems to have a crush on Greil, which I felt was unnecessary (and IMO follows a rather irritating FE archetype which I wish would disappear and stay gone).

In terms of gameplay, Titania is outclassed by Jill in PoR and Haar in RD.  Not that she's bad (IMO Titania's one of the better characters in PoR and can hold her own in RD), but she's not the dominating force that breaks the game in half over her knee.  In Conquest/Revelation, Camilla takes RD Haar and cranks it to 11 - there's at least one chapter where, with a bit of prep (read: a reclass and possibly an Arms Scroll), she can't be killed short of intentionally doing so.  For someone who radiates that much aesthetic fanservice, Camilla's in-game usefulness is absolutely bonkers.  It's an odd contrast, because most of FE's fanservice characters aren't known for their raw power.  The next-closest in terms of combat IMO is Nailah, except Nailah isn't pure fanservice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like some others said the way the question is presented is very one-sided. Of course it isn't inherently bad, neither is writing a story about a knight saving a princess. But I think that in both cases you ignore outside-factors.

The media that we consume (especially when we are young) influence how we look at real life and the majority of media depict things like love and sexuality in the same way because the majority of media is made/produced and distributed by men. I don't think that it's wrong to enjoy that media but by only consuming that kind of media you only get one point of view on that subject. If women are always presented in the same way then we will see that as normal and have those expectations in real life. And when everyone has those expectations then it can be expected that women will start behaving that way out of fear of being rejected otherwise (this is also the reason why I think that it isn't always a good argument to say that it's made by a women). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/14/2019 at 7:26 PM, Johann said:

She's an empowered female hero in a straight man's fantasy.

And mentioning the fact that it’s a straight male’s fantasy is prudent to your argument how? Like the way I see it she’s just a strong female character made by a creator regardless of if that creator is male, female, gay, straight, or otherwise. The fact that she was written by a straight guy has nothing to do with the quality pf the writing. Like I don’t get why you’re so fixated on this whole “straight men for straight men” argument cause it makes very little sense if you ask me. Like yeah the target demographic is straight men so what? That doesn’t mean there isn’t stuff out there targeted towards other kinds of demographics nor does it prevent stuff made by diverse creators that target different demographics from being made. Sure it’s a lot harder in the current economic sphere no doubt but it isn’t impossible. It’s all a matter of carving out a niche for yourself and creating something that appeals to people. Where money is made, sequels and spinoffs are sure to follow.  Also straight men can still create stuff that targets demographics other than straight men. It’s entirely possible. Just like it is possible for a female creator to create something targeted towards straight men. There’s nothing wrong with either case cause again like I said not all art is for everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2019 at 2:53 AM, eclipse said:

She seems to have a crush on Greil, which I felt was unnecessary (and IMO follows a rather irritating FE archetype which I wish would disappear and stay gone).

In terms of gameplay, Titania is outclassed by Jill in PoR and Haar in RD.  Not that she's bad (IMO Titania's one of the better characters in PoR and can hold her own in RD), but she's not the dominating force that breaks the game in half over her knee.  In Conquest/Revelation, Camilla takes RD Haar and cranks it to 11 - there's at least one chapter where, with a bit of prep (read: a reclass and possibly an Arms Scroll), she can't be killed short of intentionally doing so.  For someone who radiates that much aesthetic fanservice, Camilla's in-game usefulness is absolutely bonkers.  It's an odd contrast, because most of FE's fanservice characters aren't known for their raw power.  The next-closest in terms of combat IMO is Nailah, except Nailah isn't pure fanservice.

Pretty deep into the weeds, you're missing the point. Whether or not her she's the strongest doesn't matter, it's that she's a powerful fighter (in both game and story), a well-developed character, and at no point or way does the game do her dirty. 

8 hours ago, Ottservia said:

And mentioning the fact that it’s a straight male’s fantasy is prudent to your argument how? Like the way I see it she’s just a strong female character made by a creator regardless of if that creator is male, female, gay, straight, or otherwise. The fact that she was written by a straight guy has nothing to do with the quality pf the writing. Like I don’t get why you’re so fixated on this whole “straight men for straight men” argument cause it makes very little sense if you ask me. Like yeah the target demographic is straight men so what? That doesn’t mean there isn’t stuff out there targeted towards other kinds of demographics nor does it prevent stuff made by diverse creators that target different demographics from being made. Sure it’s a lot harder in the current economic sphere no doubt but it isn’t impossible. It’s all a matter of carving out a niche for yourself and creating something that appeals to people. Where money is made, sequels and spinoffs are sure to follow.  Also straight men can still create stuff that targets demographics other than straight men. It’s entirely possible. Just like it is possible for a female creator to create something targeted towards straight men. There’s nothing wrong with either case cause again like I said not all art is for everyone.

You're going in circles. We've been over this, and I don't know how many times I need to repeat myself to get the point across. 

The argument has nothing to do with "who's allowed to create what" and if that's the impression you got, then you're either misreading or assuming. In Bayonetta's case, that her creator is a straight man complicates things, specifically in that the sexual aspects of her are designed by someone who ultimately wanted to get a nice, long look at her body. This doesn't invalidate viewing her as a sexually empowered female character however, nor is it always the case with every straight man creating a sexually charged woman, which can be done for any number of reasons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Johann said:

In Bayonetta's case, that her creator is a straight man complicates things, specifically in that the sexual aspects of her are designed by someone who ultimately wanted to get a nice, long look at her body.

y'see here's my issue with that. You're not convincing me on how it "complicates" things. I don't see how it does. I mean rational people should understand what the difference is between fiction and reality. I mean if you view a character as sexy that says more about you than it does the work itself. Cause sexiness is an inherently subjective thing now granted there are things that many people can agree are attractive like a woman's chest region and such but overall different people have different tastes and beauty standards. Also what's so wrong about creating a character for people to use as eye candy? Like I don't see the issue with that. And even then it really is only eye candy if you choose to view it that way cause again it's subjective. It really is only sexy if you see it that way at least in most cases. Like what's wrong with sexiness? You're not really answering that. I view these characters as characters as they were intended to be viewed. I do not see them as objects(even though technically they are cause y'know they don't exist). At that point the fanservice is only really fanservice if you choose to view it that way. It's only really sexist if you choose to view it as such. Again if you find it to be objectifying and misogynistic that says more about you than it does the work in question. Take for example P5 royal's Kasumi's phantom thief design:

Spoiler

Image result for kasumi persona 5

Now is that fan service? is that outfit inherently sexy? If you think it is that says more about you than it does the design itself. Cause for one that outfit is not inherently sexy. Ballad dancers and such(including young kids) wear stuff like that all the time and that isn't inherently sexy unless you choose view that way. Again it says more about you than it does the design itself. Now I'm not gonna pretend there aren't times where the intent is very clearly is meant to objectify and sexualize(See Camilla)but again I don't see the problem in sexualizing a character for eye candy. I mean the porn/hentai industry does it all the time. Like it's completely harmless. No one is going to be hurt by it at all so I ask again why is it such a bad thing? Again it's only harmful if you choose to view it that way. It's like with the whole Goblin slayer rape scene controversy. If you see that scene as sexy and 'misogynistic' that says more about you than it does the show itself. That's really all I need to say about that. Also I'm just gonna leave this video here. 

I ask one last time. What's wrong with a character being sexy? Is it because the sexiness lacks any kind of deeper meaning? Well can't a girl be attractive without reason? Some girls are just sexy. That's just a fact of life. Like a character can be be eye candy and be a deep character at the same time it's possible.

Is it because it's made to be eye candy targeted towards straight men? Well why should that be a problem? whats wrong with people creating sexy stuff to pander to other people who are into whatever the hell they're making?

Is it because it's not welcoming to woman? Well who says it has to be? It doesn't because not all art is for everyone. If you don't like it then don't engage in it. It's that simple.

like if you see a sexual depiction of a woman and your first thought is "Oh maybe all woman are nothing but sexual objects", then that says more about you than it does about whatever it is you were watching. 

Edited by Ottservia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/13/2019 at 12:32 PM, Rose482 said:

Hmmmm, Is it inherently bad? No.

I believe there is a time and place for everything, same goes for fanservice, but it could get annoying if it became too much.

Basically what I would be inclined to believe.

I don't mind fanservice so much as long as it doesn't really detract from most of the game.

Since Bayonetta was mentioned, I found some of the dialogue and "flashiness" kind of silly, but then again, the game, itself, is silly, but the game at least knows when to have a serious moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ottservia said:

y'see here's my issue with that. You're not convincing me on how it "complicates" things. I don't see how it does. I mean rational people should understand what the difference is between fiction and reality. I mean if you view a character as sexy that says more about you than it does the work itself. Cause sexiness is an inherently subjective thing now granted there are things that many people can agree are attractive like a woman's chest region and such but overall different people have different tastes and beauty standards. Also what's so wrong about creating a character for people to use as eye candy? Like I don't see the issue with that. And even then it really is only eye candy if you choose to view it that way cause again it's subjective. It really is only sexy if you see it that way at least in most cases. Like what's wrong with sexiness? You're not really answering that. I view these characters as characters as they were intended to be viewed. I do not see them as objects(even though technically they are cause y'know they don't exist). At that point the fanservice is only really fanservice if you choose to view it that way. It's only really sexist if you choose to view it as such. Again if you find it to be objectifying and misogynistic that says more about you than it does the work in question. Take for example P5 royal's Kasumi's phantom thief design:

  Reveal hidden contents

Image result for kasumi persona 5

Now is that fan service? is that outfit inherently sexy? If you think it is that says more about you than it does the design itself. Cause for one that outfit is not inherently sexy. Ballad dancers and such(including young kids) wear stuff like that all the time and that isn't inherently sexy unless you choose view that way. Again it says more about you than it does the design itself. Now I'm not gonna pretend there aren't times where the intent is very clearly is meant to objectify and sexualize(See Camilla)but again I don't see the problem in sexualizing a character for eye candy. I mean the porn/hentai industry does it all the time. Like it's completely harmless. No one is going to be hurt by it at all so I ask again why is it such a bad thing? Again it's only harmful if you choose to view it that way. It's like with the whole Goblin slayer rape scene controversy. If you see that scene as sexy and 'misogynistic' that says more about you than it does the show itself. That's really all I need to say about that. Also I'm just gonna leave this video here. 

I ask one last time. What's wrong with a character being sexy? Is it because the sexiness lacks any kind of deeper meaning? Well can't a girl be attractive without reason? Some girls are just sexy. That's just a fact of life. Like a character can be be eye candy and be a deep character at the same time it's possible.

Is it because it's made to be eye candy targeted towards straight men? Well why should that be a problem? whats wrong with people creating sexy stuff to pander to other people who are into whatever the hell they're making?

Is it because it's not welcoming to woman? Well who says it has to be? It doesn't because not all art is for everyone. If you don't like it then don't engage in it. It's that simple.

like if you see a sexual depiction of a woman and your first thought is "Oh maybe all woman are nothing but sexual objects", then that says more about you than it does about whatever it is you were watching. 

You're mistaking sexy with sexualized, and ultimately missing the key points I've made over and over again.

  • "Sexy" or "sexual" means that the character enjoys sex for themselves; "sexualized" or "sexually objectified" means they're made sexual at the expense of their other qualities, even if it contradicts those qualities.
  • Disregarding that sexiness is wildly subjective, a sexy real person largely makes the style choices themselves, where a sexualized character is 100% made by someone. A real person can choose to put on whatever they want, pose however they want, etc. A character can straight up defy physics if their creator wants them to. As such, how we perceive them is different; a real woman dressing a certain way does so for herself, while a fictional sexualized woman designed by a man is usually done so for that man's gratification.
  • There is harm in sexually objectifying women/girls and female characters, specifically in that it reinforces sexist mindsets, such as being entitled to a relationship or sex, or valuing women for their appearances over any other qualities. Real life women are subjected to this kind of sexism every day and it negatively impacts them socially, professionally, and psychologically. "Beauty standards" are not something you want to defend, given what they actually do to people of all identities and backgrounds. 
  • If you don't think gratuitous rape scenes are sexist, then you've got a serious problem understanding sexism and sexual violence
  • If you're just gonna throw the "it just says more about you than [x] itself" argument, then I'm done with you, because that is the argument of someone who has no interest in listening or learning. 

None of this is a judgment of fans for enjoying this stuff, but a criticism of creators for perpetuating sexist stereotypes, etc. I frankly don't give a shit if some random guy is getting off to their video games or anime. If you're taking this as an attack on your ability (or anyone else's) to enjoy content, then you're mistaken. The problem lies in how that content can influence people to treat women poorly or unfairly, even if they don't realize it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Johann said:

If you don't think gratuitous rape scenes are sexist, then you've got a serious problem understanding sexism and sexual violence

First of all rape scenes are not inherently sexist if you think that's the case then You are wildly misinterpreting things. If a rape scene exists in a movie, show, game, comic, etc. and it serves some kind of purpose in establishing the tone of the story and helps explore the themes of that story then yeah it isn't sexist because that wasn't purpose of the scene in question. In Goblin slayer specifically the rape scene in the first episode was to establish how brutal and malicious the goblins are. The author did not intend a sexist message with it. It was too establish the tone of the story and get the viewer invested into it's established world and premise. again there's nothing sexist about it. It's not portraying rape as a 'good' thing it's being treated as something that is disgusting and vile which it should. Again it's really all in how it's portrayed and how one chooses to interpret it. Like if you think a scene like that is sexist then you're looking waaay too deep into things when that was never the intent. The scene served it's purpose in doing what it needed it to do so I consider that 'good' writing. Again you interpreted a scene like that as sexist. I didn't interpret it that way. My friends didn't interpret it that way. All of the fans of the series never interpreted it that way. Only some people did and again the author never intended that message. If a scene like that is uncomfortable to watch that's kind of the point. Like you're supposed to feel that way if you didn't then there's something wrong with you. Again you're looking way too deep into it if you think a scene like that is inherently sexist. Cause the author never intended for that to be the takeaway. It's not the fault of the creator(kind of) or the thing they created if you interpreted their work in a way that was never intended. That is on you for interpreting it in such a way not the creator or the work in question.

Like I said, always critique something for what's it's trying to be not for what you think it should be or want it to be. When I critique media I always ask "What exactly is the author trying to get me to feel here?" Like what idea or emotion am I supposed to take away from this particular scene/character? For example if a scene is supposed to make me feel bad for a character and hate another and uses a rape scene to do that well in that instance it would've succeeded at least for me. Or if the rape scene itself is depicted in a way that gets the audience to view it in the way the author intended and if that if the author intended for you to feel uncomfortable and you felt uncomfortable with the way they depicted it then they succeeded. If the author intended for you to feel uncomfortable but you felt titillated with the way they depicted it instead then either the author did not succeed or you're just really weird. Again if a scene like that doesn't make you uncomfortable when that was the intended purpose then I don't know what to say. Like it's all about the intent of the work in question. Not everyone is going interpret art in the same way. We all have different interpretations in how we consume media. Like if the intent was to portray Rape as something titillating then yes it would be somewhat sexist. Like if in a story you're supposed to feel empowered by a dude beating on his wife and not uncomfortable yeah that is sexist because the author intended a sexist message and conveyed it in a way that made that message clear.  Again if it's portrayed in a way where it's dark and the girl is crying and stuff and it's very clear you're supposed to feel bad for the victim but you find it to be sexy for some weird reason, that says more about you then the work itself. If you want a better summation of my thoughts watch this video.

1 hour ago, Johann said:

Disregarding that sexiness is wildly subjective, a sexy real person largely makes the style choices themselves, where a sexualized character is 100% made by someone. A real person can choose to put on whatever they want, pose however they want, etc. A character can straight up defy physics if their creator wants them to. As such, how we perceive them is different; a real woman dressing a certain way does so for herself, while a fictional sexualized woman designed by a man is usually done so for that man's gratification.

Again it's only sexist if you perceive it that way. I mean let's think about this for a moment the whole point of fanservice is to titillate. Is that sexist? I would argue no it isn't(at least not inherently) because all the author wants to do is to get you hard or whatever. The intent was never to say that all woman should be treated as sexual objects. It ain't that deep. It's just someone trying to titillate their audience not to portray a sexist message. I mean I doubt most rational human beings would look at the the petting minigame in fates and go out to pet real woman without their consent. I mean if a person does do that then they're fucked in the head and need help. And again what is so wrong with an artist that wants to be horny? If a character is portrayed as beautiful and sexy that's just what the author/artist finds attractive with whatever sexual orientation they have. Like again I like cute tsundere characters with twintails and if I drew one that reflected what I viewed to be a cute girl then what's so wrong with that? What's so wrong with creating sexualized depictions of our ideal woman/man? I find nothing wrong with that. I mean yeah if I draw a cute tsundere character with twintails and grade A zettai ryouiki then yeah of course it's gonna be for my personal gratification because yeah it's what I'm into. You're not wrong when you say that but why is that a bad thing? I'm just fantasizing about my ideal woman. I know she's not real and I ain't hurting anyone with it so again what's wrong with that? I'm not saying woman should conform to my idealized fantasy by the mere act of me creating said character and posing her in ways that satisfy my fetishes. If anyone intended that to be the case then they're a disgusting human being that needs to burn. I'm not arguing against that. I don't understand what your point is when you say that? If a creator wants to make an anime booby fighting game filled with all the fetish pandering imaginable then is that wrong? Like yeah it's a sexualized depiction of a dude's idealized woman you're not wrong but so what? Like why does that matter at all? You're not answering that question. I really don't understand what you're trying to get at here. Like what what is so wrong about that? Woman can be sexy and people like to fantasize about what their idealized woman could be and put it in what they create so again I don't see why that matters at all.

1 hour ago, Johann said:

There is harm in sexually objectifying women/girls and female characters, specifically in that it reinforces sexist mindsets, such as being entitled to a relationship or sex, or valuing women for their appearances over any other qualities. Real life women are subjected to this kind of sexism every day and it negatively impacts them socially, professionally, and psychologically. "Beauty standards" are not something you want to defend, given what they actually do to people of all identities and backgrounds. 

I won't deny that people can interpret art that way. but here's the thing. Only SOME people will interpret the art they consume that way not all and I am willing to bet that the majority of rationally thinking human beings are not like that. Just because SOME people interpret it that way and act on those disgusting thoughts doesn't mean everyone else will. Outright removing this stuff from media isn't going to help either. These disgusting incels are going to exist no matter how much you criticize it and try to get rid of it. These people are going to exist and they're going be terrible. Blaming art for why these people exist is counter intuitive cause it ain't gonna help anything. There is no correlation between the two. Like I said it's comparable to the video games = violence argument. Suddenly getting rid of violence in video games isn't going to change anything because that's not the core of the issue nor is it what's causing it. The core of the issue is the people themselves and how they're raised and how they choose to interpret the media they choose they consume which is not the fault of the media itself. An artist cannot fully control how a person will interpret their artwork. They can of course do the best they can but ultimately it is on the viewer to discern meaning from the piece of artwork and that for the most part is subjective meaning those who interpret the art in a way that's morally repulsive, then it's their fault for interpreting it that way. 

 

1 hour ago, Johann said:

None of this is a judgment of fans for enjoying this stuff, but a criticism of creators for perpetuating sexist stereotypes, etc.

Really? cause based on your arguments it certainly sounds that way and even so from of what I can discern of your argument, it sounds to me like you're advocating for censorship. Which I am fully against. Every creative idea has a right to exist. Every story has a right to exist just because it makes you uncomfortable that doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. Art at the end of the day is subjective. Inherently subjective. It is impossible to be 100% objective when it comes to media criticism. You can get as close as you can but it is impossible because different forms of art appeal to different forms of people. It's like people complaining about the Native american bandanna on Mr. game & watch. Having it being there would have it literally affect no one. It's only in there for like two frames and it's harmless. Removing it would change nothing either I'll admit but things shouldn't be censored just because it makes a few people uncomfortable or because maybe some people might interpret it in a "harmful" way and act on it.  That's limiting freedom of speech, again it's not the fault of the creator or the work they create for how people choose to interpret their work. They can't fully control that and only do the best they can in trying to do so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Johann said:

You're mistaking sexy with sexualized, and ultimately missing the key points I've made over and over again.

  • "Sexy" or "sexual" means that the character enjoys sex for themselves; "sexualized" or "sexually objectified" means they're made sexual at the expense of their other qualities, even if it contradicts those qualities.

Wich to mee is an incredibly nebolous concept. Like, Camilla is the only character that i can call sexualized with a 100% certainty in the whole fe franchise. And then, you are not saying that 2b is sexualized, but only that she can be, while i would have called her sexualized whitout a second thought. As a creator, how exactly i can be sure that my charcters are not sexualized if the concept itself is so vague, short of dressing any female charcter as nun just to make sure. Wich i think would be sexist too, just in a different way.

1 hour ago, Johann said:

 

  • There is harm in sexually objectifying women/girls and female characters, specifically in that it reinforces sexist mindsets, such as being entitled to a relationship or sex, or valuing women for their appearances over any other qualities.

 There is a lot of evidence that certain "teen drama" stories, from "The sorrow of young Werther" to "13 reasons why" led to some teenagers commiting suicide/killing someone, it's100% confirmed that show like this are timebombs. Should they be banned because they may lead to harm? Should we not produce any more of them? To change the world for the better is not necessarily the job of an artist, or they would be politicians instead. I am strongly againist judging art based on how moral or immoral it is. But i admit my hypocrisy for wanting to beat Nobuhiro Watsuki to an inch of his life(in this case, the creator himself is immoral tho.)

2 hours ago, Johann said:

The problem is: people are doing this since the stone age where the glamourus thing was being very fat, and they do that in every culture that ever existed. And guys do that too. I am maybe a defeatist, but the only result that i envision for the fight againist beauty standards is that "arbitrary characteristic y" will become desirable instead of "arbitrary characteristic x", and people will start destroying their bodies seeking y instead.

3 hours ago, Johann said:

 

  • If you don't think gratuitous rape scenes are sexist, then you've got a serious problem understanding sexism and sexual violence

Why rape scene are held to an higher standard compared to gratuitous murder or torture scenes, wich are far, far more common? I find more often scenes were a sadistic villain has an helpless person of their preferred sexuality at their complete mercy and yet no rape hapen even if logically should happen than gratuitus rape scenes. Lots of games allow you to do really fucked up things like selling your friends to slavers or murdering children in brutal and graphic ways, but i can't think on a single non-hentai game that allow me to rape someone(wich i am not interested in doing anyway, i was juat making a point about games that allow you to be evil). To me it seems that at least videogames go out of their way to avoid rape. I consider the goblin slayer scene sexist, but i don't think that those scenes are that common, at least in anime and videogame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Flere210 said:

but i can't think on a single non-hentai game that allow me to rape someone

generally because games dont intend for you to be playing as sociopaths. even when murder is involved, theres a justification for it when it's "the bad guys". it's kind of hard to do that in this case.

it would be like playing as the protagonist of manhunt 2, which is an example of a game that was banned in quite a few countries because of extreme violence. sexual violence is mostly the last thing that game publishers want to be risking their games rating and entire viability on - to do what? remind people it exists and make people uncomfortable and land your game with an AO rating?

Edited by Tryhard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

generally because games dont intend for you to be playing as sociopaths. even when murder is involved, theres a justification for it when it's "the bad guys". it's kind of hard to do that in this case.

it would be like playing as the protagonist of manhunt 2, which is an example of a game that was banned in quite a few countries because of extreme violence. sexual violence is mostly the last thing that game publishers want to be risking their games rating and entire viability on - to do what? remind people it exists and make people uncomfortable and land your game with an AO rating?

I was talking about games like fallout, were nothing prevent you from pointing a shotgun on a random civilian and pull the trigger. Or to join unambigusly evil organizzation like the legion. Recently i had to leave the room because my sister was playing GTA V and in a mission show had to torture someone. There are definitly games out there were playing as a sociopath is allowed or even encouraged.

My point is that even game like that have standards and rape is were they draw the line. Wich imo seemed relevant in a discussion about gratutous rape being prevalent in media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Ottservia said:

Take for example P5 royal's Kasumi's phantom thief design:

  Reveal hidden contents

Now is that fan service? is that outfit inherently sexy? If you think it is that says more about you than it does the design itself. Cause for one that outfit is not inherently sexy. Ballad dancers and such(including young kids) wear stuff like that all the time and that isn't inherently sexy unless you choose view that way. Again it says more about you than it does the design itself. Now I'm not gonna pretend there aren't times where the intent is very clearly is meant to objectify and sexualize(See Camilla)but again I don't see the problem in sexualizing a character for eye candy. I mean the porn/hentai industry does it all the time. Like it's completely harmless. No one is going to be hurt by it at all so I ask again why is it such a bad thing? Again it's only harmful if you choose to view it that way. It's like with the whole Goblin slayer rape scene controversy. If you see that scene as sexy and 'misogynistic' that says more about you than it does the show itself. That's really all I need to say about that. Also I'm just gonna leave this video here.

It did a surprising number of things right.  For example, the color splashes are in places that make sense (hair, eyes, hands).

However, I don't think I'd allow a little girl to wear heels like that.  I'd also do something about that scabbard - looks nice on paper, but the minute she dodges something, it's gonna smack her in the leg, hard.  While a ballerina outfit is something that's worn by dancers of all ages, younger ones would wear proper tights, which wouldn't expose the upper thigh like that.

Pose-wise, there's some emphasis on the feet, which are a somewhat common fetish point IIRC.  Combine that with the heels, and I'd say that there's some inherent sexualization there.  It's hardly the worst thing I've seen, though.

Biggest offender IMO is the positioning of the eyes.  They look far too wide apart!

Edited by eclipse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Flere210 said:

I was talking about games like fallout, were nothing prevent you from pointing a shotgun on a random civilian and pull the trigger. Or to join unambigusly evil organizzation like the legion. Recently i had to leave the room because my sister was playing GTA V and in a mission show had to torture someone. There are definitly games out there were playing as a sociopath is allowed or even encouraged.

My point is that even game like that have standards and rape is were they draw the line. Wich imo seemed relevant in a discussion about gratutous rape being prevalent in media.

I was actually thinking of the GTA series or something like that when I said that, hence why I said generally, because Rockstar never seemed to much care about restricting their games to Mature or even Adult Only or being outright banned in the case of Manhunt (2).

Most creators in almost anything, movies, books, and games, don't want to touch themes of sexual violence with a ten foot pole for a reason, though. It's going to be not received well, it's most likely not going to be done well, and it's going to make people uncomfortable especially if its completely out of place. You know what you're getting yourself into before the fact when you buy GTA when it is violent. You are right when you say that video games avoid this, but it really doesn't have anything to do with sexual content, considering the amount of consensual sex scenes in video games.

Edited by Tryhard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Tryhard said:

Most creators in almost anything, movies, books, and games, don't want to touch themes of sexual violence with a ten foot pole for a reason, though. It's going to be not received well, it's most likely not going to be done well, and it's going to make people uncomfortable especially if its completely out of place. You know what you're getting yourself into before the fact when you buy GTA when it is violent. You are right when you say that video games avoid this, but it really doesn't have anything to do with sexual content, considering the amount of consensual sex scenes in video games.

For actually showing the action? Yes. For mentioning rape in some form? It's not uncommon, even in non-adult works.

The hints tend to range from "ambiguous" to "all but said" depending on the work and intent, but they do exist. And sometimes they just outright state that a character is a rapist without actually showing them commit the crime (at least, not graphically). That said, it's usually done less for the purpose of bringing awareness to these issues and more either for shock value or to tell the audience "please hate this scumbag" (and in the case of videogames: "Here's a new weapon. Here's a despicable person. Have at it."). It depends on the work in question for whether this is handled well or not, but writers/developers aren't afraid to at least skirt the topic matter at times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2019 at 7:41 PM, Ottservia said:

First of all rape scenes are not inherently sexist if you think that's the case then You are wildly misinterpreting things. If a rape scene exists in a movie, show, game, comic, etc. and it serves some kind of purpose in establishing the tone of the story and helps explore the themes of that story then yeah it isn't sexist because that wasn't purpose of the scene in question. In Goblin slayer specifically the rape scene in the first episode was to establish how brutal and malicious the goblins are. The author did not intend a sexist message with it. It was too establish the tone of the story and get the viewer invested into it's established world and premise. again there's nothing sexist about it. It's not portraying rape as a 'good' thing it's being treated as something that is disgusting and vile which it should. Again it's really all in how it's portrayed and how one chooses to interpret it. Like if you think a scene like that is sexist then you're looking waaay too deep into things when that was never the intent. The scene served it's purpose in doing what it needed it to do so I consider that 'good' writing. Again you interpreted a scene like that as sexist. I didn't interpret it that way. My friends didn't interpret it that way. All of the fans of the series never interpreted it that way. Only some people did and again the author never intended that message. If a scene like that is uncomfortable to watch that's kind of the point. Like you're supposed to feel that way if you didn't then there's something wrong with you. Again you're looking way too deep into it if you think a scene like that is inherently sexist. Cause the author never intended for that to be the takeaway. It's not the fault of the creator(kind of) or the thing they created if you interpreted their work in a way that was never intended. That is on you for interpreting it in such a way not the creator or the work in question.

Like I said, always critique something for what's it's trying to be not for what you think it should be or want it to be. When I critique media I always ask "What exactly is the author trying to get me to feel here?" Like what idea or emotion am I supposed to take away from this particular scene/character? For example if a scene is supposed to make me feel bad for a character and hate another and uses a rape scene to do that well in that instance it would've succeeded at least for me. Or if the rape scene itself is depicted in a way that gets the audience to view it in the way the author intended and if that if the author intended for you to feel uncomfortable and you felt uncomfortable with the way they depicted it then they succeeded. If the author intended for you to feel uncomfortable but you felt titillated with the way they depicted it instead then either the author did not succeed or you're just really weird. Again if a scene like that doesn't make you uncomfortable when that was the intended purpose then I don't know what to say. Like it's all about the intent of the work in question. Not everyone is going interpret art in the same way. We all have different interpretations in how we consume media. Like if the intent was to portray Rape as something titillating then yes it would be somewhat sexist. Like if in a story you're supposed to feel empowered by a dude beating on his wife and not uncomfortable yeah that is sexist because the author intended a sexist message and conveyed it in a way that made that message clear.  Again if it's portrayed in a way where it's dark and the girl is crying and stuff and it's very clear you're supposed to feel bad for the victim but you find it to be sexy for some weird reason, that says more about you then the work itself. If you want a better summation of my thoughts watch this video.

I specifically said gratuitous rape scenes are sexist. Putting it in there to "establish how brutal and malicious the goblins are" is gratuitous and sexist. The female characters being raped is a cheap dramatic tool for the other characters and viewer have a reason to hate the rapist characters. More often than not, the victims of the rape are also treated as disposable objects and not characters. Compare this to something like A Streetcar Named Desire where the gravity of what rape is and does is explored. It's not some throwaway bit, it's the central piece of the story, and the main character herself is the victim. This is the kind of "art reflecting reality" example you should be looking at.

Frankly I'm disgusted that you would defend works of gratuitous rape like that. Take note that this is the first (and so far, only) time where I'm making a moral judgment of you as a person.

On 5/23/2019 at 7:41 PM, Ottservia said:

Again it's only sexist if you perceive it that way. I mean let's think about this for a moment the whole point of fanservice is to titillate. Is that sexist? I would argue no it isn't(at least not inherently) because all the author wants to do is to get you hard or whatever. The intent was never to say that all woman should be treated as sexual objects. It ain't that deep. It's just someone trying to titillate their audience not to portray a sexist message. I mean I doubt most rational human beings would look at the the petting minigame in fates and go out to pet real woman without their consent. I mean if a person does do that then they're fucked in the head and need help. And again what is so wrong with an artist that wants to be horny? If a character is portrayed as beautiful and sexy that's just what the author/artist finds attractive with whatever sexual orientation they have. Like again I like cute tsundere characters with twintails and if I drew one that reflected what I viewed to be a cute girl then what's so wrong with that? What's so wrong with creating sexualized depictions of our ideal woman/man? I find nothing wrong with that. I mean yeah if I draw a cute tsundere character with twintails and grade A zettai ryouiki then yeah of course it's gonna be for my personal gratification because yeah it's what I'm into. You're not wrong when you say that but why is that a bad thing? I'm just fantasizing about my ideal woman. I know she's not real and I ain't hurting anyone with it so again what's wrong with that? I'm not saying woman should conform to my idealized fantasy by the mere act of me creating said character and posing her in ways that satisfy my fetishes. If anyone intended that to be the case then they're a disgusting human being that needs to burn. I'm not arguing against that. I don't understand what your point is when you say that? If a creator wants to make an anime booby fighting game filled with all the fetish pandering imaginable then is that wrong? Like yeah it's a sexualized depiction of a dude's idealized woman you're not wrong but so what? Like why does that matter at all? You're not answering that question. I really don't understand what you're trying to get at here. Like what what is so wrong about that? Woman can be sexy and people like to fantasize about what their idealized woman could be and put it in what they create so again I don't see why that matters at all.

You're going in circles again. The creator's intent doesn't excuse their choices. Their works should be criticized based on their impacts, not intentions. It's possible to titillate your audience without objectifying women or perpetuating sexism. The problem is most creators aren't rising above that, mostly due to the influence of other works that have helped normalize sexism.

A person creating something sexually objectifying privately for their own amusement is still making something sexually objectifying, but it's not as big of a deal since nobody else is going to see it. Yet, there is room for self-reflection in that art, and the creator could be asking themselves "why did I draw the character this way?" which leads to "what is it about these design choices that I like?". It's not to label them as bad or anything, but to become more aware of what is influencing their creative choices, which is necessary for any artist to grow and succeed.

On 5/23/2019 at 7:41 PM, Ottservia said:

I won't deny that people can interpret art that way. but here's the thing. Only SOME people will interpret the art they consume that way not all and I am willing to bet that the majority of rationally thinking human beings are not like that. Just because SOME people interpret it that way and act on those disgusting thoughts doesn't mean everyone else will. Outright removing this stuff from media isn't going to help either. These disgusting incels are going to exist no matter how much you criticize it and try to get rid of it. These people are going to exist and they're going be terrible. Blaming art for why these people exist is counter intuitive cause it ain't gonna help anything. There is no correlation between the two. Like I said it's comparable to the video games = violence argument. Suddenly getting rid of violence in video games isn't going to change anything because that's not the core of the issue nor is it what's causing it. The core of the issue is the people themselves and how they're raised and how they choose to interpret the media they choose they consume which is not the fault of the media itself. An artist cannot fully control how a person will interpret their artwork. They can of course do the best they can but ultimately it is on the viewer to discern meaning from the piece of artwork and that for the most part is subjective meaning those who interpret the art in a way that's morally repulsive, then it's their fault for interpreting it that way. 

More circles, I'm getting tired of having to repeat myself, so please read more carefully. All forms of media influence us in conscious and subconscious ways, whether we are aware of it or not. Art is a feedback loop of influence and creation, action and reactions. An artist's work doesn't emerge from nothingness, and any number of influences, even subconscious or unintended ones could shape their work. This is why you need to stop viewing this subject as a matter of intent and interpretation, because art extends far beyond both. As I've had to state multiple times before, art does not make people do things, so stop bringing up the video game violence comparison as if it were relevant-- you're misunderstanding that as poorly as the concerned ignorant parents and legislators.

On 5/23/2019 at 7:41 PM, Ottservia said:

Really? cause based on your arguments it certainly sounds that way and even so from of what I can discern of your argument, it sounds to me like you're advocating for censorship. Which I am fully against. Every creative idea has a right to exist. Every story has a right to exist just because it makes you uncomfortable that doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. Art at the end of the day is subjective. Inherently subjective. It is impossible to be 100% objective when it comes to media criticism. You can get as close as you can but it is impossible because different forms of art appeal to different forms of people. It's like people complaining about the Native american bandanna on Mr. game & watch. Having it being there would have it literally affect no one. It's only in there for like two frames and it's harmless. Removing it would change nothing either I'll admit but things shouldn't be censored just because it makes a few people uncomfortable or because maybe some people might interpret it in a "harmful" way and act on it.  That's limiting freedom of speech, again it's not the fault of the creator or the work they create for how people choose to interpret their work. They can't fully control that and only do the best they can in trying to do so. 

Yes, really. That you read it as such is your own mistaken inference.

Furthermore, criticism isn't censorship. Calling out something like the Mr. Game & Watch bandanna ultimately depended on Nintendo's choice. Freedom of speech protections only protect you from the government, not people being angry with your behavior or creative choices. Nobody is exempt from criticism or any blowback from controversy.

On 5/23/2019 at 8:56 PM, Flere210 said:

Wich to mee is an incredibly nebolous concept. Like, Camilla is the only character that i can call sexualized with a 100% certainty in the whole fe franchise. And then, you are not saying that 2b is sexualized, but only that she can be, while i would have called her sexualized whitout a second thought. As a creator, how exactly i can be sure that my charcters are not sexualized if the concept itself is so vague, short of dressing any female charcter as nun just to make sure. Wich i think would be sexist too, just in a different way.

It arguably exists on a scale, there are aspects of some FE character presentations that are sexualized. Camilla and Loki are consistently sexualized more than any other character though. Regarding 2B, I'm not going to discuss her much because I haven't played her game, so I don't want to make claims I can't support, but yeah I'd say her outfit is sexualizing.

If you want to make sure your work isn't sexually objectifying, the thing to think about is why each design choice exists, whether that's their outfit, behavior, body language, or the way the camera presents them. We've all been exposed to sexually objectifying stuff for so long that many artists tend to not even notice some of those objectifying choices in their own work, so it may take a lot of training the eye to recognize it for what it is. I suppose if you were an artist and you weren't sure, you could always show it to others and get some impressions.

On 5/23/2019 at 8:56 PM, Flere210 said:

 There is a lot of evidence that certain "teen drama" stories, from "The sorrow of young Werther" to "13 reasons why" led to some teenagers commiting suicide/killing someone, it's100% confirmed that show like this are timebombs. Should they be banned because they may lead to harm? Should we not produce any more of them? To change the world for the better is not necessarily the job of an artist, or they would be politicians instead. I am strongly againist judging art based on how moral or immoral it is. But i admit my hypocrisy for wanting to beat Nobuhiro Watsuki to an inch of his life(in this case, the creator himself is immoral tho.)

The wrong way to view it is to say "this show/movie/game made people do [x]" and instead think about how it influences them. Rather than banning a show like 13 Reasons Why, the real questions are mostly about mental health, like who has access to support, what forms of depression are there and where do they come from, etc. The only thing I think should outright be banned is propaganda for stuff like white supremacy, that sort of thing, which serves no purpose other than to mislead, inspire hatred, and instigate violence.

On 5/23/2019 at 8:56 PM, Flere210 said:

The problem is: people are doing this since the stone age where the glamourus thing was being very fat, and they do that in every culture that ever existed. And guys do that too. I am maybe a defeatist, but the only result that i envision for the fight againist beauty standards is that "arbitrary characteristic y" will become desirable instead of "arbitrary characteristic x", and people will start destroying their bodies seeking y instead.

Right, it's always existed and doesn't have boundaries, but it's still something that can be pushed back against for the sake of getting people to feel more confident, spend less, and treating others better. I don't think we'll ever see a world where people put no value on appearances, but at the very least some people can become more aware of what valuing appearances does to themselves and others and change their thinking/behavior.

On 5/23/2019 at 8:56 PM, Flere210 said:

Why rape scene are held to an higher standard compared to gratuitous murder or torture scenes, wich are far, far more common? I find more often scenes were a sadistic villain has an helpless person of their preferred sexuality at their complete mercy and yet no rape hapen even if logically should happen than gratuitus rape scenes. Lots of games allow you to do really fucked up things like selling your friends to slavers or murdering children in brutal and graphic ways, but i can't think on a single non-hentai game that allow me to rape someone(wich i am not interested in doing anyway, i was juat making a point about games that allow you to be evil). To me it seems that at least videogames go out of their way to avoid rape. I consider the goblin slayer scene sexist, but i don't think that those scenes are that common, at least in anime and videogame.

Are rape scenes held to a higher standard? Not to say I disbelieve you, I just don't know many games with that level of violence so I don't have the same frame of reference. I suppose the reason is that the creators are ultimately more comfortable exploring violence than rape. It might have to do with some extreme violence being "justified" in the context of the game, like the classic "torture a bad guy for information" scene, which are perhaps best exemplified by the hit TV show 24. Meanwhile, rape is never portrayed as justified, even though there are often disagreements as to what counts as rape vs consensual sex, but that's another rabbit hole of a discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Johann said:

The only thing I think should outright be banned is propaganda for stuff like white supremacy, that sort of thing, which serves no purpose other than to mislead, inspire hatred, and instigate violence.

It would be a slippery-as-hell slope, but I'd also ban any nonfiction work whose goal is to spread misinformation.  Shit like Holocaust denial shouldn't be given a spotlight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@JohannOk you know I’m just gonna concede the argument. It is clear that neither of us are going to budge on our beliefs so I think it best we just agree to disagree on this one. I will admit I could’ve done a much better job of arguing my points but that’s neither here nor there anymore. I still stand by most of my points but this whole debate has just been way too exhausting. If it means anything I did learn something from all this, I’ll try not to be so stubborn in any future debates. I apologize for any rudeness or hostility I may have put forth in this whole ordeal. That was never my intention and I am sorry if I made anyone feel lesser. And with that I bid you all adeu

Edited by Ottservia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Eh, I think they have their place. But I don't think they shouldn't be there for the sake of being there, and they shouldn't be the be-all and end-all type of characters.

If for example, Camilla from Fates was implied in the main game, and only outright shown her assets in a summer-related DLC, then I think the majority of us wouldn't be in a huge uproar.

The majority of fanservice in TMSFE is a better example, as that is more in line with the idol image that the TMSFE recreates in the game.

Rise in Persona 4 (not sure about Ann Takamaki, as I haven't played Persona 5), and the entirety of Kanamin Kitchin in the Dancing All Night sequel are fanservice done right, in my opinion. Firstly, the idol archetype is deconstructed in both cases, and is shown to be not necessarily a good thing in-universe (and in RL!Japan). In Rise's case, her role as the fanservicey idol in Persona 4 contributes to a bigger narrative about how there is more to people than how the media and rumors portrays them as. In the Kanamin Kitchen's case, Atlus went even further, and narrates how fanservice can negatively affect the idols themselves. And in both cases, we also have other playables, which are, Chie, Yukiko, and Naoto, who are quite attractive without being outright fanservicey like Rise is, or the boys who also show their attractive physiques - Yu, Kanji (bulging muscles!) and Teddie in my opinion. And while there are moments of outright fanservice events and contents, they are relatively few and far between, and are just shown as breather episodes or mostly hidden under DLCs.

Edited by henrymidfields
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

To answer the question yes.  I see artistic expression as something pure, communicating one's thoughts/feelings/philosophies etc into their work.  Now that may end up pleasing fans, like the one dude who said he likes hot girls so he drew one.  That isn't 'fan service', he made what he wanted to make serving his interests and expression it just happened to also please the fans.  

If one instead creates something specifically to please the fans, then they rob their work of some integrity.  Besides tiny nods/easter eggs which won't really detract from the experience but pay tribute to the fans at the same time.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...