fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2507 ]

[ SECRET POST #2507 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2507 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10. [WARNING FOR: shota/underage stuff]

__________________________________________________

11.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 038 secrets from Secret Submission Post #358.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I really need to confess something here: I don't agree with the majority of the outrage in yesterdays "Quiet" wank. I joined in with the outrage, even though I simply don't agree. I kept my true opinions to myself because I didn't want to get dog piled and there was... quite a bit of hate flying around.

Well I've been thinking about it, obsessively, all day. I'm feeling kinda like shit about how I handeled it, and really do need to come clean and confess.

To be honest, I don't think it's a problem. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with over sexualisation of a character of either gender (I know it tends to be women who get sexualized in almost everything (except MGS, oddly. I mean wow, pick your battles better guys.) and I know this is something to be very unhappy about, but targeting any sexualisation as inherently bad is... not right. The problem is a lack of balance in sexualisation, not the existence of sexualisation in general). The problem comes when the over sexualisation leads to objectification. I do not think that an admittedly ridiculously sexual character design inherently devalues a character, or makes said character nothing but a sexual object.

I think the problem comes when the creators ONLY care about how sexual a character is. When a character is someone like Ayumi From Xblades, who has NO character but the sexy adventuress, and it's obvious no-one involved with the game cared about her being anything other than the sexy adventuress. THAT is objectification. She is nothing but a sexual object and THAT is a problem.

I do not think, based on past evidence, that you can say Kojima only cares about making hot characters. ALL of his characters have been both sexy AND wonderfully developed.

In fact, I would say that looking at a character in an over sexualized outfit, and based on nothing more than how the character looks, having no idea about anything else relating to the character, how she's written, how she acts, what her character arc is, what her story is, how she is developed, etc, and then dismissing that character as nothing more than an object, nothing more than fap fodder, BASED ONLY ON HOW SHE LOOKS. I think that is closer to objectification than the original design.

Well, there we go. I don't agree with all the hate from yesterday, and I'm out about it, time to take my lumps. Come at me bros.

what on earth are you rambling about, anon

They're talking about this: http://fandomsecrets.dreamwidth.org/908107.html?thread=696848459#cmt696848459

It's all there, but yeah, that is an awful lot text to wade through. sorry about that.

TLDR, I don't agree that the character design of "Quiet" from MGSV is as horrendous or offensive as almost everyone in yesterdays post seemed to think. I was cowardly and went along with it, an today I felt like shit for it, so I'm exorcizing my small fannish guilt.

lmao I mean I can agree with you but "time to take my lumps" when you're anon kind of makes me laugh.

Well, yeah, there are no real lumps to take when you're online, but it will be interesting to see how many negative replies this anon is going to get. Anon or not, it still isn't super pleasant.

That is a lot of words that did nothing to explain to me why you think that outfit serves any other purpose than objectifying, not sexualizing, objectifying her.

But nony all sexualistion is objectification.

Joking or no?

No.

Re: The "Quiet" secret from yesterday

(Anonymous) - 2013-11-14 03:20 (UTC) - Expand

Sexualizing (as far as I'm concerned) = Highlight / emphasizing sexual characteristics.

Over Sexualizing (as far as I'm concerned) = Highlight / emphasizing sexual characteristics beyond what is necessary.

Objectifying (as far as I'm concerned) = Reducing a person or a character to nothing but an object.

Sexualizing is about how a character looks. Objectifying is about how a character acts and fits within the story.

We do not know how she acts and fits within the story. We can say that she has been sexualized or over sexualized, but until we know how much the sexualizing affects her as a character we cannot, in my mind, say she has been reduced to nothing but an object.

I have a problem with looking at a person or character and then deciding the merits of their character based on those looks.

There is no element of her outfit that isn't designed to scream sex object. It's not an outfit with elements of sexuality. It's the clothing equivalent of screaming FUCK. Outside of her character it is safe to say that her visual design is objectifying. You can take a fully fleshed out character and the second you place her in that outfit she is being objectified. REAL PEOPLE CAN AND ARE OBJECTIFIED EVERY DAY.

I've been advised not to continue with this, but I just want to say:

I disagree.

I think a character can have the look of a sex object, and still be more than just a sex object, look at... Almost any Angelina Jolie character. Look at Linda Carters Wonder Woman.

On the flip side, look at raiden. When Kojima pitched the idea of raiden, his wording was something like (Forgive me I this isn't 100% correct it's been years) I want a beautiful fragile looking man as the new main character. Then the game comes out and he's a fucking badass... Who occasionally does naked cartwheels. Do the naked cartwheels diminish him as a character? No. Fuck no. He's wearing less clothes than Quite, and yet, look at that: not an object.

It's the whole thing about not judging a book by it's cover. I don't think you can say a character is being reduced to the status of an object based on how they look. Shit, look at lollipop chainsaw. The objectified character in that was not the girl in the cheerleading uniform. She was sexualized, ofcourse, and I'me sure you'd argue that her character design looked like it was objectifying, but then you play the game and follow the story, and you see that the looks do not dictate the character's strength.

TL;DR. I respectfully disagree.

Except we're not judging the character, we are judging the people that decided to design her that way. She herself isn't hurt by us decrying her outfit-- she's not real. In turn, the design sends a message to a culture that is already neck-deep in objectified female characters and that, as a default, expects women to fit this sexual mold for its benefit, regardless of if real women are comfortable with it or not.

Complaining about objectification/sexualisation isn't a critique on a character itself. It's a criticism on the idea that we have to have this image shoved in our faces time and time again and have to keep being skeptical of every female character and whether they'll do her justice because the way she is presented to us is the most cookie-cutter design possible.

I don't want to have to be "well, I'll wait for the game's release and then PAY this company and THEN I'll be able to see if her character is good or not." I don't want to have to waste my money on something that may, again, be a disappointment.

Also, in and on itself, the design is atrocious.

I've been advised to drop this, but I do feel the need to reply, so, yeah...

Two points to bring up "the design sends a message to a culture that is already neck-deep in objectified female characters" "It's a criticism on the idea that we have to have this image shoved in our faces time and time again" I continue to say that the design is sexualized, and we cant say she's been reduced to an object until we find out about her character, but I do agree it can be very sickening to see only women sexualized, but I maintain the issue is one of balance, that it's almost only women who get sexualized is the problem and I think this is a goose and gander situation. More sexualized men, not less sexualized women. If you think this wont work, look at supernatural, and wonder how well received if Dean was played by steve buscemi. Supernatural needs better writing in my opinion (this would be the part where I really earn those brass balls Noodly gave me) but there is no reason for them to have less sexualized men. People, men and women, like sexy people, this is not a problem as far as I'm concerned.

The problem is that sexualisation often leads to objectification, and that IS a terrible thing that needs to stop, but judging weather they've "done a female character justice" based on how she looks, while understandable, is doing no-one any good. There is an old axiom about judging books by their covers, and it stands up, Judging by twilights cover it is a classy book about apples.

"I don't want to have to waste my money on something that may, again, be a disappointment"

Welcome to the life of a consumer. this is true of every purchase of everything. Fortunatly we live in an age of the internet, if she really doesn't hold up as a character, you WILL find out about it, but based on the current internet attitude, you could be forgiven for thinking that she doesn't hold up as a character even before anyone's had a chance to play the game.

"Also, in and on itself, the design is atrocious."

I respectfully disagree. Ok, yes it's HIGHLY sexualized, but funnily enough I am ok with this. I like her design. If her design is as deep as her character goes (I.E Ayumi of XBlades) I will have a problem, but so far, I like it.

Actually, TL;DR for this whole thing: I respectfully disagree.

Re: The "Quiet" secret from yesterday

(Anonymous) - 2013-11-14 02:59 (UTC) - Expand

we're not judging the character, we are judging the people that decided to design her that way. She herself isn't hurt by us decrying her outfit-- she's not real

This needs to be printed off and plastered all over the monitors of everyone taking part in a conversation about female characters in games.

She's not real. "She" doesn't have a "backstory". "She" has a design team, who decided to write a story that justified that appearance (in order to, openly, pander to the audience and encourage more sexy cosplay). Saying that "well you can't judge her until you know how she ending up that way" is BALLS OUT LUDICROUS because "she" IS NOT REAL. She "ended up that way" because a group of writers and designers decided to make her end up that way. She didn't just blunder into a captive/torture situation in Afghanistan because SHE'S NEVER BEEN TO AFGHANISTAN. She can't go to Afghanistan. Because she's NOT REAL. She's never been tortured. She can't have been tortured. She's a collection of pixels.

No one is criticizing "her". They can't. She doesn't exist outside of an idea and a digital painting of that idea. They're criticizing the people who chose to make her that way, however they felt the need to justify or rationalize it. They could have chosen to give her a different backstory and present that idea/picture a different way. They did not. That's what at issue.

That said, pointing out that MGS as a series has a lot of equal-opportunity pandering and a good track record of attributing deep, three-dimensional, humanizing characteristics to scantily-clad pictures of women in the past are completely fair arguments. "But we don't know her backstory yet!" is not.

Re: The "Quiet" secret from yesterday

(Anonymous) - 2013-11-14 14:10 (UTC) - Expand

Re: The "Quiet" secret from yesterday

ariakas - 2013-11-14 14:47 (UTC) - Expand

you earned em kid

I don't quite recall the quote, or who said it, but isn't there something about balls being weak and easily damaged, but vagina's being able to take a pounding? Would you happen to have a stainless steal vagina?

Hal Sparks is probably who you're thinking of.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUdCo05g4fY&feature=relmfu

Brass balls can probably hold up, but here you go, take your pic

One might argue that going around with the more vulnerable junk is proof of courage (go patriarchy!)

The second one down on the right isn't a vagina, is it? I have the oddest fear that whatever it is, it's going to remove my head and polish my skull clean as a trophy.

It was uterus, not vagina, iirc

Don't kick people in the genitals. Neither can take a pounding.

"Don't kick people in the genitals. Neither can take a pounding."

I think I saw this warning on the end of one of those old GI Joe cartoons some years ago.

Re: Here are your complimentary balls

insanenoodlyguy - 2013-11-14 03:56 (UTC) - Expand

I'm surprised nobody has said Betty White.

THAT'S IT! that's the quote I was referring to.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only