Jimquisition (September 14th, 2015) - A Quiet Conversation

Clearly.



Like I said, a character, man or women, being there solely for people to look at isn't the end of the world. People objectify people all the time, everyone. Stefanie Joosten is fine with how Quiet is portrayed, so that should really be the end of it.



Kojima doesn't need to change just because you don't like what he's done. The existence of a sexy character doesn't undermine women, there is other media.
"But the actress likes her" isn't a valid excuse for the terrible portrayal. I mean not counting the fact that actors are rarely good when it comes to plot analysis, they also have a bias because it's a character they've played. For instance I'm sure none of the VA for the FF13 characters thought they were terrible roles. And yes, a character like Quiet in one of the biggest video games of 2015 does a lot to undermine a ton of progress being made for gaming in general when it comes to female protagonists. The game undermines her (incredibly contrived) character arc in every single way.
 
"But the actress likes her" isn't a valid excuse for the terrible portrayal. I mean not counting the fact that actors are rarely good when it comes to plot analysis, they also have a bias because it's a character they've played. For instance I'm sure none of the VA for the FF13 characters thought they were terrible roles. And yes, a character like Quiet in one of the biggest video games of 2015 does a lot to undermine a ton of progress being made for gaming in general when it comes to female protagonists. The game undermines her (incredibly contrived) character arc in every single way.

I think applying a character's representation to the representation of all women is a silly stretch. I bring up the actress because Quiet's physically based on her. No one else is being objectified here, not women on the whole, just Stefanie. And she's fine with it.
 
When I first heard the 'breathing through the skin' excuse I just laughed. There's no way anybody could buy it ... Right?
 
I don't know, I'm usually really offended by female characters objectified (in Japanese games especially), but Quiet's extreme sexualization seems to be closer to satire, I can't even take it seriously. I'm absolutely sure Kojima followed Gamergate and the whole debate around it and decided to create an extremely objectified character that has no relevance to the plot whatsoever on purpose to spur more debate and generate more buzz around the game after it is released. It is after all the guy who wrote a few examples of really great female video game characters and proposed in MGS2 concept document that "the 21st century will be the age of women".
 
I think applying a character's representation to the representation of all women is a silly stretch. I bring up the actress because Quiet's physically based on her. No one else is being objectified here, not women on the whole, just Stefanie. And she's fine with it.

.

I'm sure shit sucks for Ahmed Best, too. That doesn't have shit to do with whether or not Jar Jar Binks was a garbage character.
 
If Ahmed Best looks like Jar Jar then that sure is unfortunate.

If you really think that the actress is the one who is being objectified, I don't think we can have a productive conversation.

A fictional character is not the same as an actual human being.
 
If you really think that the actress is the one who is being objectified, I don't think we can have a productive conversation.

A fictional character is not the same as an actual human being.

Yeah, obviously. But she's physically based off of her, it's a representation of her in the game. I don't think I'm the one equating real life with games here.
 
I think applying a character's representation to the representation of all women is a silly stretch. I bring up the actress because Quiet's physically based on her. No one else is being objectified here, not women on the whole, just Stefanie. And she's fine with it.

That's endearing. So if we extrapolate so that a black person gets discriminated against by racists but is personally fine with it, everyone else should be fine with it too? Unfortunately the world doesn't quite work like that.
 
Yeah, obviously. But she's physically based off of her, it's a representation of her in the game. I don't think I'm the one equating real life with games here.

The physical features and what characterizes the actress is not the thing that's being objectified. It's not the actress that's being objectified.

The character design, the camera work, the animations, the writing, the narrative, the sexualization, all work to entirely objectify this fictional mute stripper sniper.
 
That's endearing. So if we extrapolate so that a black person gets discriminated against by racists but is personally fine with it, everyone else should be fine with it too? Unfortunately the world doesn't quite work like that.

Looking at a sexualised women is not equal to racial persecution, don't be daft.

The physical features and what characterizes the actress is not the thing that's being objectified. It's not the actress that's being objectified.

The character design, the camera work, the animations, the writing, the narrative, the sexualization, all work to entirely objectify this fictional mute stripper sniper.

Okay, so taking Stefanie Joosten out of it; a digital character is being gawked at. Where's the problem? She's not real, end of.
 
Looking at a sexualised women is not equal to racial persecution, don't be daft.
.


Of course it's not, didn't figure I'd have to spell it out. I'm saying that you can't limit representation issues to single people like the actor in this instance. The imagery reaches a wide audience, keeping up stereotypes and affecting attitudes. I'd agree if no one else but the actor ever saw the game.
 
Of course it's not, didn't figure I'd have to spell it out. I'm saying that you can't limit representation issues to single people like the actor in this instance.

And I'm saying that sexual objectification is harmless, making any sort of comparison between sexuality and racism is being disingenuous.

Watch Feminist Frequency or the video in the OP if you want to get a 101 on why this garbage is dumb or in worst cases problematic.

Yeah, I've watched it. It seems like complaining that there's a sexy character. I don't think a character being sexy detracts from their story. It all just comes off as "don't look at sexy women". And well I think that's garbage.
 
You're allowed to feel that way, but in the context of the Metal Gear series it hardly feels out of place. Sniper Wolf's tits were falling out of her top, Vulcan Raven marched about the snow just wearing pants and Raiden was covering up his genitals for an entire section in 2. That bizarre aspect is par for the course. Quiet is just an extension of that.

I'm not even talking about it in relation to the series, it's out of place in the game.
I wouldn't have minded some wink wink nod nod titillation easter egg like past MGS games had, but here Quiet puts her ass in your face every chance she gets.
When she turns around in the helicopter, she stays with her ass in your face like 4 seconds, even looking back at you, like a shitty soft core porn or something.

It's out of place because it's not in some specific moment, it's every single time, and you may have just come back from some emotionally intense story moments (as sparse as they are in this game) and be covered in blood, and there she is, awkwardly making a fool out of herself.

It's shitty storytelling, and that's why it's bad.

By comparison, the posters in MGS2 for example were comical and put in the right place, if you wanted to have that sort of material in the game.
 
Like I said, a character, man or women, being there solely for people to look at isn't the end of the world. People objectify people all the time, everyone. Stefanie Joosten is fine with how Quiet is portrayed, so that should really be the end of it.
how does that make it okay? and no, the actor portraying the character stanning her absolutely does not mean the end of it. it's the argument equivalent of 'i'm not racist, i have black friends!'

Kojima doesn't need to change just because you don't like what he's done. The existence of a sexy character doesn't undermine women, there is other media.
sexy characters? no. sexist portrayals of women? yes, that absolutely undermines women. and popular media doesn't exist in a vacuum. you're using the same shitty 'just don't buy it' argument worded differently.

other media has problems too and that doesn't make this shit alright. thing is we have the right to criticise this bullshit.


And I'm saying that sexual objectification is harmless, making any sort of comparison between sexuality and racism is being disingenuous.
oh wow, you really think sexual objectification is harmless? you don't see how it's shitty to treat a woman like a sexual object and not, you know, a human? :/


Yeah, I've watched it. It seems like complaining that there's a sexy character. I don't think a character being sexy detracts from their story. It all just comes off as "don't look at sexy women". And well I think that's garbage.
that is absolutely not what sarkesian is trying to say in her tropes videos, but w/e, misinterpret her arguments about objectification in order to dismiss them i guess

which specific video are you talking about btw?
 
I don't know, I'm usually really offended by female characters objectified (in Japanese games especially), but Quiet's extreme sexualization seems to be closer to satire, I can't even take it seriously. I'm absolutely sure Kojima followed Gamergate and the whole debate around it and decided to create an extremely objectified character that has no relevance to the plot whatsoever on purpose to spur more debate and generate more buzz around the game after it is released. It is after all the guy who wrote a few examples of really great female video game characters and proposed in MGS2 concept document that "the 21st century will be the age of women".

Kojima also created four mentally-regressed female characters - with face scans of models - and made them pose for the camera in a weird segment not related to the plot of MGS4 at all. He even pushed for them to be naked during the game's development.
 
And I'm saying that sexual objectification is harmless, making any sort of comparison between sexuality and racism is being disingenuous.

It's like talking to a wall that's talking semantics: the point was that the personal view of the actor doesn't matter in the wider picture, not the harmlessness or harmfulness. And don't worry, you can keep your views. Just making a point that I, as I can only speak for myself, don't find those points that convincing.
 
I think applying a character's representation to the representation of all women is a silly stretch. I bring up the actress because Quiet's physically based on her. No one else is being objectified here, not women on the whole, just Stefanie. And she's fine with it.
The point is that it's still ridiculous that we get characters like this in a 2015 game. With so many disingenuous excuses from fans of the creator. The character herself is being objectified. Sexist portrayals of women, whether the actress is ok with it or not, is harmful. Keyword, sexist, there's a world of difference between this and Eva.

Yeah, obviously. But she's physically based off of her, it's a representation of her in the game. I don't think I'm the one equating real life with games here.
Only her face.
 
There's a funny dialogue exchange between Russian soldiers in Afghanistan about Quiet before you actually encounter her.

"They say she's always naked.

Naked?

Yeah. So you know she's not from around here."
 
yep,she is inexcusable no matter from what side you try to take her..
I'm not against sexy characters or showing some skin,especially because i believe that A,some beautiful women DO like to show their bodies just like handsome men do,so i can get cehind a woman in a sexy ostume in a videogame and don't consider her an object just because of that,and B because it's just fanservice for the sake of money,basically we have many sexy female characters and very few sexy male ones for the same reason we have tons of fps and very few space simulators..it's money,and publisher when spending a lot of money they decide to put in on the more "secure" demographic..in this case white 20-something men...of course there might be a female market for them to explore and they don't realize it...but they didn't realize the hunger for space sims either before star citizien came and got millions and millions for those whom the market decided to not consider

but in her case not only the sexy costume is really,REALLY blatant (i wouldn't had any problem with her in a bikini top and military long pants,but stockings?really?),but the whole sexy poses and camera right on her butt really can't be considered in any other way...

and this comes from a guy who thinks that the internet loves to overreact to the issue and much prefers a world where in any media,an author can write everything he wants (even a bad female or bad male character),instead of having to answer to soe internet group that tries to make all the characters go in the same directions..i see it as a form of censorship,maybe wrongly so.
 
how does that make it okay? and no, the actor portraying the character stanning her absolutely does not mean the end of it. it's the argument equivalent of 'i'm not racist, i have black friends!'


sexy characters? no. sexist portrayals of women? yes, that absolutely undermines women. and popular media doesn't exist in a vacuum. you're using the same shitty 'just don't buy it' argument worded differently.

other media has problems too and that doesn't make this shit alright. thing is we have the right to criticise this bullshit.



oh wow, you really think sexual objectification is harmless? you don't see how it's shitty to treat a woman like a sexual object and not, you know, a human? :/



that is absolutely not what sarkesian is trying to say in her tropes videos, but w/e, misinterpret her arguments about objectification in order to dismiss them i guess

which specific video are you talking about btw?

Objectification is not exclusive to women, and yes I think it's fine. I don't have a problem with Quiet, I don't have a problem with the sexualised men on the cover of romance novels and I don't have a problem with women gawking at a football player. Humans are sexual, and demonising that is a horrible thing. A character being sexy doesn't detract from their worth or impact on a story, especially in a series like Metal Gear where there's an established tone.

And no, I didn't deliberately misinterpret Sarkeesian's arguments. I'm talking about Jim's video, you know the one in the OP?

The point is that it's still ridiculous that we get characters like this in a 2015 game. With so many disingenuous excuses from fans of the creator. The character herself is being objectified. Sexist portrayals of women, whether the actress is ok with it or not, is harmful. Keyword, sexist, there's a world of difference between this and Eva.


Only her face.

I don't think it's ridiculous. The excuses shouldn't even be needed, Kojima wanted a sexy character and he made one. I don't see how Quiet being depicted how she is could possibly harm anybody.
 
Objectification is not exclusive to women, and yes I think it's fine. I don't have a problem with Quiet, I don't have a problem with the sexualised men on the cover of romance novels and I don't have a problem with women gawking at a football player. Humans are sexual, and demonising that is a horrible thing. A character being sexy doesn't detract from their worth or impact on a story, especially in a series like Metal Gear where there's an established tone.

And no, I didn't deliberately misinterpret Sarkeesian's arguments. I'm talking about Jim's video, you know the one in the OP?



I don't think it's ridiculous. The excuses shouldn't even be needed, Kojima wanted a sexy character and he made one. I don't see how Quiet being depicted how she is could possibly harm anybody.
Kojima did much worse than just having a "sexy" character. A zoom in on a character's tits during a torture and rape sequence does detract from the moment. So yes, a character being "sexy" can ruin impactful moments, case and point, every fucking Quiet scene where she has the tiniest bit of agency are ruined by that stupid outfit and the terrible camera work. Speaking of, the tone of the game plays it completely straight 99.9% of the time, rarely does the actual campaign have jokes in the narrative aside from hilariously terrible VA work. So the tone is completely serious, yet we have characters like Quiet and Skullface, it's the most inconsistent metal gear ever in that regard.
 
Objectification is not exclusive to women, and yes I think it's fine. I don't have a problem with Quiet, I don't have a problem with the sexualised men on the cover of romance novels and I don't have a problem with women gawking at a football player. Humans are sexual, and demonising that is a horrible thing. A character being sexy doesn't detract from their worth or impact on a story, especially in a series like Metal Gear where there's an established tone.

And no, I didn't deliberately misinterpret Sarkeesian's arguments. I'm talking about Jim's video, you know the one in the OP?



I don't think it's ridiculous. The excuses shouldn't even be needed, Kojima wanted a sexy character and he made one. I don't see how Quiet being depicted how she is could possibly harm anybody.
I agree.
 
Kojima did much worse than just having a "sexy" character. A zoom in on a character's tits during a torture and rape sequence does detract from the moment. So yes, a character being "sexy" can ruin impactful moments, case and point, every fucking Quiet scene where she has the tiniest bit of agency are ruined by that stupid outfit and the terrible camera work. Speaking of, the tone of the game plays it completely straight 99.9% of the time, rarely does the actual campaign have jokes in the narrative aside from hilariously terrible VA work. So the tone is completely serious, yet we have characters like Quiet and Skullface, it's the most inconsistent metal gear ever in that regard.

You've likely seen Raiden's torture scene in MGS2, yes? Where he's splayed out entirely nude. I don't see the difference.


I think you're the first.
 
Objectification is not exclusive to women, and yes I think it's fine. I don't have a problem with Quiet, I don't have a problem with the sexualised men on the cover of romance novels and I don't have a problem with women gawking at a football player. Humans are sexual, and demonising that is a horrible thing. A character being sexy doesn't detract from their worth or impact on a story, especially in a series like Metal Gear where there's an established tone.
And no, I didn't deliberately misinterpret Sarkeesian's arguments. I'm talking about Jim's video, you know the one in the OP?

Characterization and story do not only consist of dialogues and actions. Visual directions and designs are absolutely parts of storytelling.

And while we are on the subject of discussing Jim's video, he isn't even demonising Quiet, going as far as saying that he loves titillation. He only say the implementation in Quiet's case is non-sensical, distracting and disappointing.
 
I think applying a character's representation to the representation of all women is a silly stretch. I bring up the actress because Quiet's physically based on her. No one else is being objectified here, not women on the whole, just Stefanie. And she's fine with it.

I don't know, I'm usually really offended by female characters objectified (in Japanese games especially), but Quiet's extreme sexualization seems to be closer to satire, I can't even take it seriously. I'm absolutely sure Kojima followed Gamergate and the whole debate around it and decided to create an extremely objectified character that has no relevance to the plot whatsoever on purpose to spur more debate and generate more buzz around the game after it is released. It is after all the guy who wrote a few examples of really great female video game characters and proposed in MGS2 concept document that "the 21st century will be the age of women".

I think both these guys make good points.
 
You've likely seen Raiden's torture scene in MGS2, yes? Where he's splayed out entirely nude. I don't see the difference.
It's played for comedy, not titillation, and the game doesn't sexualize him during it.

I think both these guys make good points.
The "Kojima made Quiet to provoke gamergate debates" is the stupidest thing i've read since fans proposed that he intentionally cut the ending and several scenes from the game to go along with the title "Phantom Pain."
 
And I'm saying that sexual objectification is harmless, making any sort of comparison between sexuality and racism is being disingenuous.

And I'm saying you're wrong because it sets societal roles, boundaries and attitudes towards genders that is discriminating, humiliating and unacceptable. And I'm sad that you can't see this, but I would guess it just serves you well.
 
It's played for comedy, not titillation, and the game doesn't sexualize him during it.


The "Kojima made Quiet to provoke gamergate debates" is the stupidest thing i've read since fans proposed that he intentionally cut the ending and several scenes from the game to go along with the title "Phantom Pain."

So you're saying that a man being stripped and tortured for comedy isn't problematic. I'm fine with how both are presented, but it seems like you're enacting a double standard.

And I'm saying you're wrong because it sets societal roles, boundaries and attitudes towards genders that is discriminating, humiliating and unacceptable. And I'm sad that you can't see this, but I would guess it just serves you well.

Sexualised fictional characters aren't going to inflict some moral wrong on society.
 
Sexualised fictional characters aren't going to inflict some moral wrong on society.

Yes they will; just because they are fictional does not preclude them from portraying roles for and setting up expectations from real women.

I can see that you don't get this, and it's sad.

The sad truth is, you just enjoy the depiction and don't want to say 'I like it, so up yours.'
 
And I'm saying you're wrong because it sets societal roles, boundaries and attitudes towards genders that is discriminating, humiliating and unacceptable. And I'm sad that you can't see this, but I would guess it just serves you well.

Slow down there.
Pervasive, pointless objectification like this can be harmful, i agree (though it's sort of non-quantifiable in practical terms) but it's silly as a blanket statement.
Otherwise there would be no place for most eroticism and pornography.
Not to mention other forms of objectification, that aren't sexual.
 
Yes they will; just because they are fictional does not preclude them from portraying roles for and setting up expectations from real women.

I can see that you don't get this, and it's sad.

The sad truth is, you just enjoy the depiction and don't want to say 'I like it, so up yours.'

I like it, so up yours.

Do you have studies that can confirm what you're saying.
 
I like it, so up yours.

Do you have studies that can confirm what you're saying.

Yeah. Here's one on video games specifically: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-007-9278-1#page-1

Video game characters are icons in youth popular culture, but research on their role in gender socialization is rare. A content analysis of images of video game characters from top-selling American gaming magazines showed male characters (83%) are more likely than female characters (62%) to be portrayed as aggressive. Female characters are more likely than male characters to be portrayed as sexualized (60% versus 1%), scantily clad (39% versus 8%) and as showing a mix of sex and aggression (39 versus 1%). A survey of teens confirmed that stereotypes of male characters as aggressive and female characters as sexually objectified physical specimens are held even by non-gamers. Studies are discussed in terms of the role media plays in socializing sexism.

And here is one on media in general: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-010-9929-5

This paper provides a commentary regarding the quantitative content analyses of gender roles in media published in the two special issues of Sex Roles (Rudy et al. 2010a, 2011). A few themes and some overarching lessons emerge from the wide variety of data presented. First, it is clear that women are under-represented across a range of media and settings. Second, when women are portrayed, it is often in a circumscribed and negative manner. Women are often sexualized—typically by showing them in scanty or provocative clothing. Women are also subordinated in various ways, as indicated by their facial expressions, body positions, and other factors. Finally, they are shown in traditionally feminine (i.e., stereotyped) roles. Women are portrayed as nonprofessionals, homemakers, wives or parents, and sexual gatekeepers. Although the studies generally support these conclusions, some interesting moderating factors are identified, such as race. It is suggested that next steps involve the development of theory and a body of empirical evidence regarding the effects of exposure to under-representation of women. Data concerning the effects of exposure to sexualized or stereotypical portrayals on young audiences is also lacking. Finally, content analyses of new media, including those created and distributed by users, are recommended as a next step. It is concluded that, while increasing the representation of women in media may be valuable, it is also critical that the manner in which they are portrayed be simultaneously considered to avoid increasing negative or stereotypical depictions that may be particularly harmful to viewers.
 
Whilst I'm not going to pay $40 to read these for an internet argument, both of those are, going by their synopsis, only detailing gender portrayals in media, not on their detrimental effects on people.

What part of '..discussed in terms of the role media plays in socializing sexism.' or the conclusion that '..it is also critical that the manner in which they are portrayed be simultaneously considered to avoid increasing negative or stereotypical depictions that may be particularly harmful to viewers' is not discussion' did you miss? You don't need to pay up if you don't want to by any means, bu the abstract does give away the major finding. I would actually go on and even send you a lot of research on the matter when I have library access, but I really don't feel you are actually interested. The thing is, media's role in influencing societal/gender roles is hardly a matter of debate.
 
Objectification is not exclusive to women, and yes I think it's fine. I don't have a problem with Quiet, I don't have a problem with the sexualised men on the cover of romance novels and I don't have a problem with women gawking at a football player. Humans are sexual, and demonising that is a horrible thing. A character being sexy doesn't detract from their worth or impact on a story, especially in a series like Metal Gear where there's an established tone.

And no, I didn't deliberately misinterpret Sarkeesian's arguments. I'm talking about Jim's video, you know the one in the OP?
we're not talking about the objectification of men. and no, it's not fine. we shouldn't see other human beings as objects to be purchased or won. it garners a troubling sense of entitlement where people think they are owed something from the opposite sex.
and calling against sexism and objectification isn't the same thing as demonising sexuality, like at all. please stop trying to push this.

and it not just necessarily that if a character is sexy it undermines them, it's when the game objectifies the female sex and makes female characters nothing more than a sexual object instead of a character. quiet being sexy is fine, the way kojima handled her character is absolutely not.

and sorry about the last part. misread the original comment and thought you were talking about sarkesian's videos, not sterling's.
 
What part of '..discussed in terms of the role media plays in socializing sexism.' or the conclusion that '..it is also critical that the manner in which they are portrayed be simultaneously considered to avoid increasing negative or stereotypical depictions that may be particularly harmful to viewers' is not discussion' did you miss? You don't need to pay up if you don't want to by any means, bu the abstract does give away the major finding. I would actually go on and even send you a lot of research on the matter when I have library access, but I really don't feel you are actually interested. The thing is, media's role in influencing societal/gender roles is hardly a matter of debate.

You specifically said that sexualised characters are a bad thing. You're veering now.

we're not talking about the objectification of men. and no, it's not fine. we shouldn't see other human beings as objects to be purchased or won. it garners a troubling sense of entitlement where people think they are owed something from the opposite sex.
and calling against sexism and objectification isn't the same thing as demonising sexuality, like at all. please stop trying to push this.

and it not just necessarily that if a character is sexy it undermines them, it's when the game objectifies the female sex and makes female characters nothing more than a sexual object instead of a character. quiet being sexy is fine, the way kojima handled her character is absolutely not.

and sorry about the last part. misread the original comment and thought you were talking about sarkesian' videos, not sterlings.

I think objectification of both genders is linked, and I said I'm fine with both. And yeah, it does come off as demonising sexuality. Porn is nothing but objectification, I don't think it's bad.
 
Worst part is, it ain't even the design for me. It's the directing and the all the stupid poses she does.


Pretty much this. The lingering shots on her chest and ass really makes it look like she was designed with the camera shots in mind. It also makes me think less of Kojima for his "...words and deeds" statement.
 
So you're saying that a man being stripped and tortured for comedy isn't problematic. I'm fine with how both are presented, but it seems like you're enacting a double standard.



Sexualised fictional characters aren't going to inflict some moral wrong on society.
And here we go with the terrible double standard bullshit. It's nowhere near as problematic as borderline torture porn. The camera doesn't take the time to zoom in on Raiden's abs and behind every chance it gets, in every scene that he's featured in. In fact, one of the jokes about Raiden is that he's extremely feminine compared to Snake in 2.
 
You specifically said that sexualised characters are a bad thing. You're veering now.

You are grasping at straws, an academic study will not conclude that something 'is bad' - it just shows how far detached you are from academia. It will simply prove links of causality and correlation between things, and whether the outcome is good or bad is subjective. Yes, fictional characters influence gender role expectations (which is what you asked) and IF YOU ASK ME Quiet and female characters like her do that in a bad way, i.e. they make males feel entiteld to female bodies - if that is good in your book, that's your call.

Honestly, I'm through with you.
 
But did they do a study on a technically clothes, digital woman based on a model doing yoga on a helicopter seat?

That's 300x worse than the most vile of porn, and thus unquestionably problematic.
The thing about porn is that we know what it is, the creators know what it is, the actors know what it is, and the entire film industry doesn't have fans trying to act like porn isn't poorly written schlock meant for the sole purpose of arousing(in this case), male viewers. Pornography doesn't have people trying to defend stupid narrative reasons for the exposure of women, you'd never hear anyone say, "Why's she stripping in the rain. Why is the camera zooming in her breasts and behind every chance that it can" Porn doesn't try to be a serious war narrative that includes child soldiers in Africa(with extremely forced Lord of the Flies references), and nukes. So you can stop with the false equivalence.
 
You are grasping at straws, an academic study will not conclude that something 'is bad' - it just shows how far detached you are from academia. It will simply prove links of causality and correlation between things, and whether the outcome is good or bad is subjective. Yes, fictional characters influence gender role expectations (which is what you asked) and IF YOU ASK ME Quiet and female characters like her do that in a bad way, i.e. they make males feel entiteld to female bodies - if that is good in your book, that's your call.

Honestly, I'm through with you.

That's probably a good thing, you're frothing at the mouth because we disagree about a sexualised game character.

And here we go with the terrible double standard bullshit. It's nowhere near as problematic as borderline torture porn. The camera doesn't take the time to zoom in on Raiden's abs and behind every chance it gets, in every scene that he's featured in. In fact, one of the jokes about Raiden is that he's extremely feminine compared to Snake in 2.

I guess pointing out double standards is taboo somehow? I don't see where you're going with your argument.
 
That's probably a good thing, you're frothing at the mouth because we disagree about a sexualised game character.



I guess pointing out double standards is taboo somehow? I don't see where you're going with your argument.
It's not a double standard because your counter example is in no way shape or form comparable and only serves to hurt your argument because I can articulate several reasons why they're dissimilar and how that ties into the treatment of female protagonists and male protagonists in this series when it comes to objectification. First and foremost
-Male sexualization in metal gear=99% of the time for comedy
-Female sexualization in metal gear=99% of the time for titillation.

Not to mention that example is completely void when you're talking about Phantom Pain specifically, Snake having a naked outfit(luckily he's a male and males wear pants, not female tho, they don't need to wear pants /s), isn't sexualization, now if it were to put focus on his muscles and behind and every scene in the game suddenly changed to make it so that we get to see those parts up close then you'd have an argument.
 
Reading this hiex conversation, the person doesn't sound very well versed on this subject, and it doesn't seem like he or she wants to be. I'd just ignore em.

And great video from Jim, as always. Kojima is very embarrassing when it comes to gender representation and sexualization, always has been. The Boss was really the exception that makes characters like Quiet all the more frustrating.
 
Top Bottom