[ SECRET POST #5168 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5168 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 40 secrets from Secret Submission Post #740.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[thewakokid]

I worry this is an argument waiting to happen... but I feel a lot of people take the existence of eye candy in a character and are unable or unwilling to look beyond it. Like if the character has huge hoots, they will say "Oh, well she was clearly designed for the male gaze and therefore is nothing but a sex object".

I feel there is a thread in discourse where the fact that the physical design appeals to guys and a certain subset of lesbians translates into peoples heads as "Made only for men, therefore trash" regardless of who designed them, why, how the narrative treats them, and their any other character components.

See the discourse around OG Lara, Ivy from Soul Calibre, Bayonetta etc for example. Doesn't matter what else they are, what else they do, of how they act within the story it's always "Tits therefore object". I mean one of the things I will NEVER forgive Anita Sarkeesian for is calling OG Lara Croft a "Fighting fuck toy". from that moment on, peace was never an option between us.

[philstar22]

I don't play video games, so I never read up on any of that stuff, so I can't comment specifically on that. But I agree with you that sometimes people don't look past eye candy to see what a character actually has to offer. Happened with Seven of Nine of Voyager who was an awesome character in her own right while also being a very eye candy character. Now, do I wish Star Trek had more male eye candy characters (the movies do, but the tv shows don't), sure. But Seven of Nine is awesome and complicated. And hot. And those are two separate issues, and one doesn't mean the other isn't possible.

I do think there are times where female characters aren't developed past eye candy, and that needs to be talked about. But the discussion shouldn't be a blanket one that says this is true of all eye candy female characters because it clearly isn't, and saying that actually weakens the argument for the places where it is true.

[thewakokid]

I dunno, I've seen a lot of Picards hairy chest in the series for you to say /no/ male eye candy. But I take your point.

One of the most depressing things I ever learn was all the vile shit Kate Mulgrew said to and about Jeri Ryan when they brought her on. I finished a star trek binge a few months ago, and knowing what the actress thought of Jeri really took me out of it. I couldn't buy all that "Protective mothering" crap they were trying to sell.

[philstar22]

Yup. Janeway was always a maternal figure to me growing up, and finding out about that did a number on those feelings. I'm mostly good at separating characters from actors, but in this case my feelings have changed a bit. Still like Janeway, but I don't see her as a mother figure in the same way I did as a kid anymore.

[(Anonymous)]

But is this really ANY different from those people and by people I mean frat boys who automatically dismiss, say, an anime because it's "for girls", in which it just means it has a perfect narrative but they DARED include some bishounen eyecandy and/or slash fanservice? I mean, no, it's not automatically bad because it has some sort of fanservice you don't personally like. But that should go both ways. I see many people argueing in the way you are argueing. Not in the way I am, though.

[philstar22]

This is true. A lot of men have issues when there is eye candy for women while at the same time wanting all the eye candy they can get for themselves. It is really sad and frustrating, and because often these men are the ones in charge of making media or at least the loudest of fans in genre shows, it leads to there being less eye candy for girls.

It absolutely should go both ways. There should be eye candy for everyone, male and female, gay and straight. Just give us lots of variety. Eye candy that also happens to be well written characters.

[(Anonymous)]

We have a winner opinion.

[thewakokid]

Nope. Not different in any way.

Well, I guess frat boys don't feel they are fulfilling some moral imperative to be noble and good in their writing off of women because tids, but that's a minor motivational difference. End result is exactly the same.

[(Anonymous)]

In my opinion, you're probably overestimating frat boys but... you do you.