Support NeoGAF

[Zukuu]

I think it's pretty clear when it's just fanservice and oversexualization and when it's just a normal outfit. Yes, even a sexy cut dress can be normal. Women wear such things, BY CHOICE, every day. What I hate is when women "armor" leaves out her boobage or something. That makes no sense. Tho, in jrpgs men armor doesn't make sense either as seen in the newest FF mobile announcement...

Good example of how it should be. Glad Larian made the change.

 

[nynt9]

shouldn't you ask the character?

I get that people are saying 'ask women' but that would still be projecting a stance on someone that isn't able to respond. How do we know what the character's motivation is? Are they dressing like they do because they feel empowered, or because they are doing it for the benefit of others?

Of course we can't ask them, because they aren't real. So I suppose we will never know the answer. The closest thing would be to ask the character designer, or the author of the story which requires this character. But would you trust their response if they were a male character designer?

Basically I don't see how there is a good answer to this question

Would you trust their answer if they were a female designer? There are examples of sexualized female characters in fiction written by women. And what one woman thinks is empowering can be sexualized to another woman.

 

[CyanideFuse]

My rule-of-thumb for anything in life: Dress practical for the situation.

Flat bottomed footwear and armour that covers the body without leaving 'choicely' positioned armour-less areas is most likely the most practical thing to wear in combat.

 

[Servbot24]

.


Generally without any deeper context I'd go by the rule if a woman created the character and design, it's empowerment, if a male did it's sexualization.

Empowerment =/= Sexualization
Sexualization = Objectification

What? Whether a character is "empowered" has nothing to do with who created it. It's the context of the world.

Let's take Fran. She makes sense in the context of the world. She's in some forest tribe (I haven't played the game in a while), and like many many characters in the game she has animal ears. She fits. Did the designer just want to get his rocks off? Maybe! But as long as the character fits that's not our place to speculate.

Ashe on the other hand. Her outfit does not make any sense in the context of her personality or her objective or her culture.

Neither has anything to do with whether the person who made them was male or female.

Furthermore "empowerment" is fine but not every single character in a game should be some empowered badass goddess. There are shitty people out there, weak people, insecure people, immoral people, etc. And they can all be fantastic characters.

 

[antennaehead]

Could female character be more empowered because of sexualization? Sure, I can imagine that - character using her sexuality as a weapon (Bayonetta immediately comes to mind).

More interesting question though - could female character be de-empowered because of her sexualization? This could be viewed both in-game (in-game characters looking down on her because of her outfit for example) and out of game (when female character is dismissed because of her sexualization by players).

 

[Shengar]

Nonsense. Any designer can justify why their heroine wears a metal bikini suit of armor. It's just lame excuse for exploitation.

Of what I mean isn't a simple "why". It's like a good argument, needs to be intricate, and convincing. Other than that it just an asspull. How itself couldn't stand stand alone without proper reason behind it.
Also she the quoted posts below me.

I understand that what you're saying Is essentially true, but does that mean we can't have cultures who wear very little clothes in their games? As an anthropologist, I love a variety of fictional cultures, and a very significant portion of real cultures are mostly naked. If you want to depict tropical people, they will almost certainly wear little more than a loin cloth/bikini. Those cultures are real and significant. If we want either depict them or realistic fictional cultures, you need to have that or else you're white washing their culture to fit western sensibilities. That's wildly culturally disrespectful.

I think the most important thing is agency, OP. We shouldn't strive just to depict exclusively strong females characters. We should create female characters with depth, motivation, cultural background, and a realistic place within the world. I think I saw Kelly Sure DeConnick (prominent female comic book writer, a medium dealing with this same issue) say that she just wants to be sure her female characters aren't just sexy lampshades. If a sexy lampshade could replace the character, it's nothing but a sexual object. The character should have a motivation in every scene, hopes and goals of some sort. I could be misattributing that concept but I think it was her. Some female characters will own their sexuality, others will hide it, and for others it's not very important - whether they're wearing a lot of clothes or none at all.

Excellent response, well done. Couldn't be said better.

 

[Commanche Raisin Toast]

It's interesting that so many people forget that we define our own sexuality and that a fantasy race of people don't have to conform to your, or even the consensus, of what is considered sexually stimulating to look at.

The majority of these supposed sexualized female characters strike very few notes with my personal sexual tastes, so to me they aren't objectified to ME, or pandering to ME.

Maybe others, but I think it's a lost cause to try and establish that we all must look at female sexuality the same way before were allowed to have a thorough analysis on the issue at hand.

 

[Mesoian]

Context is king.

Yup. That's pretty much the beginning and end of it. Making that context likable and believable is what can make something as silly as a woman wearing a bikini to a sword battle acceptable versus it being idiotic pandering.

The unfortunate thing is, we will rarely learn enough about the characters who are sexualized, male or female, to get that context as most developers don't think it's important enough to the actual gameplay experience.

I, personally, wanted a funny cutscene in Hyrule Warriors where Cia, after essentially drooling over Link's image in her magic mirror for an hour, runs to her closet in order to pick out the outfit "That a guy would like the most" resulting in her purple evening dress with giant slats cut out of it for no reason.

But we didn't...

But we didn't.

Characterization in games is a problem in general.

It's interesting that so many people forget that we define our own sexuality and that a fantasy race of people don't have to conform to your, or even the consensus, of what is considered sexually stimulating to look at.

The majority of these supposed sexualized female characters strike very few notes with my personal sexual tastes, so to me they aren't objectified to ME, or pandering to ME.

Maybe others, but I think it's a lost cause to try and establish that we all must look at female sexuality the same way before were allowed to have a thorough analysis on the issue at hand.

Yes, people get to have opinions on what's tasteful or not. The discussion doesn't get to devalue one person's idea of sexualized versus another.

However, let's take Tera, where the idea of high level female mage armor is, literally, pasties and t-backs. That's really hard to justify as anything but a chance at some skinship.

 

[Nairume]

I find this problematic. Because as I said, Fran was contextualized within a culture. Here's a woman who lives amongst other women in a tribal hunter/gatherer/mystic community. Viera are segmented between all male communities and all female communities. She is necessarily going to have a unique view on sexuality and what is appropriate to wear.

Sure, she could have a different view.

That view is never explored.

All we are left with is a well traveled warrior from a community that, according to you, wouldn't have much reason for sexuality wearing a highly impractical and highly sexualized outfit.

 

[fedexpeon]

Some women feel that sexualisation IS empowerment (Trust me, I know them).

It all depends on each person's perspective. There is no single answer to the whole debate.

Yup.
One of my clients was a former dancer.
She believes using her sexuality is power.
I can't argue with that because to be able to abuse and manipulate men is a God-given talent of social and marketing skill.

She loves it when men look at her when she enters a conference room because she knows she will devour them during the presentation.
A wolf in a room of sheep.

 

[Xamtheking]

It's interesting that so many people forget that we define our own sexuality and that a fantasy race of people don't have to conform to your, or even the consensus, of what is considered sexually stimulating to look at.

The majority of these supposed sexualized female characters strike very few notes with my personal sexual tastes, so to me they aren't objectified to ME, or pandering to ME.

Maybe others, but I think it's a lost cause to try and establish that we all must look at female sexuality the same way before were allowed to have a thorough analysis on the issue at hand.

We like to apply human ideals and beliefs to non-human settings, because it helps us to understand them more

 

[Not]

I actually 100% agree with this. A lot of people seem to find comfort in organizing the 9billion+ of us on this planet into simple groups. They want a quick "1 size fits all" label for as large of a group as possible so the numbers will work in the system/society they think they can make.

Would love for the day to come where people start caring about individuals.

Jesus, what should I have said? "Ask individual women?" My bad. This is so ridiculous.

 

[Amir0x]

Sure, she could have a different view.

That view is never explored.

All we are left with is a well traveled warrior from a community that, according to you, wouldn't have much reason for sexuality wearing a highly impractical and highly sexualized outfit.

Tribal societies across the planet frequently wear almost nothing.

If I live in Japan, can I not draw inspiration from those societies without it being viewed within the prism of the cultural problems Japan has regarding sexism?

 

[Shengar]

I think it's pretty clear when it's just fanservice and oversexualization and when it's just a normal outfit. Yes, even a sexy cut dress can be normal. Women wear such things, BY CHOICE, every day. What I hate is when women "armor" leaves out her boobage or something. That makes no sense. Tho, in jrpgs men armor doesn't make sense either as seen in the newest FF mobile announcement...

Good example of how it should be. Glad Larian made the change.
http://i.imgur.com/Ltt3uxA.jpg[IMG][/QUOTE]

If Larian makes a reverse change aka makes the man shows his muscle, it'll be more interesting and somehow still feel fair too :p

[quote="Amir0x, post: 144025804"]Tribal societies across the planet frequently wear almost nothing.

If I live in Japan, can I not draw inspiration from those societies without it being viewed within the prism of the cultural problems Japan has regarding sexism?[/QUOTE]

They wear almost nothing because it's practical. When designing a character, the balance between practicality and style is important. Fran is one of the example that couldn't get the balance right to make her believable and more accepting of why would she dressed like that.

 

[Nocturnal]

just a reminder that you don't have to click on and participate in every single thread that gets created

It is the first time that I actually reply to one of these threads.

 

[Deified Data]

I think it's pretty clear when it's just fanservice and oversexualization and when it's just a normal outfit. Yes, even a sexy cut dress can be normal. Women wear such things, BY CHOICE, every day. What I hate is when women "armor" leaves out her boobage or something. That makes no sense. Tho, in jrpgs men armor doesn't make sense either as seen in the newest FF mobile announcement...

Good example of how it should be. Glad Larian made the change.

Now if only they gave her a right arm.

 

[Crocodile]

In the end, I think the only thing I can rely on with regards to how I feel about how particular examples that straddle the line set forth by the topic is my gut. Sexualization has never been and never will be inherently wrong so you are often going to get disagreements for when it goes too far. Hell titillation isn't inherently wrong either but that's one of those things that's very "there's a time and a place for X". Different people have different thresholds for what they find acceptable and what they do not. Hell within the context of particular fictional universes you have examples that both pass the mustard and cross the line for individual people. Execution, framing, context, agency, the actual subject, etc. are all important factors to consider when doing an analysis. Outside of the extreme examples, there really aren't going to be definitive answers. I think the only thing we can really do is listen and try to respect well-argued opinions even if we disagree with them (i.e. people who don't like X aren't automatically prudes and those who do like X aren't automatically deviants).

As for sexualization vs empowerment, I think I heard the barometer here, of "Do I want to be them? Or be with them?"

I'd certainly like to get down with some of the chicks in Dead or Alive, but I'd much rather actually be Bayonetta, than try to do anything with her.

I don't think those are mutually exclusive concepts. For both genders regardless of ones own sexuality, I think being both attracted to and wanting to be a character at the same time is pretty common.

Is sexualization the opposite of empowerment? I thought that'd be objectification.

It might be going into semantics but I think that yeah, objectification might be more accurate since sexualization is not inherently wrong.

 

[Corpekata]

I'll buy the "there's some cultures like this!" angle when games have them be more than a tribe of Ridiculously Good Looking People. Something tells me we won't ever see the Naked Bunny People equivelant of Ron Jeremy in a video game.

 

[Pimpwerx]

just a reminder that you don't have to click on and participate in every single thread that gets created

I don't. I steer clear of these things. I only made my post because Amir clearly made this thread following the shitting up of the FFXV thread. I've said my piece, and that's that. These kinds of discussions should remain in properly-labeled, on-topic threads like this. PEACE.

 

[Xamtheking]

Tribal societies across the planet frequently wear almost nothing.

If I live in Japan, can I not draw inspiration from those societies without it being viewed within the prism of the cultural problems Japan has regarding sexism?

The damn sad thing is most of us don't give a damn/don't know about those tribal societies

 

[Deified Data]

Jesus, what should I have said? "Ask individual women?" My bad. This is so ridiculous.

In a thread with little real dissent some people have to start making their arguments very...particular.

 

[Zukuu]

Now if only they gave her a right arm.

Now, now. One thing at a time.

 

[Not]

These characters are reverse engineered to explain their sexualization which does not change the fact that they're sexualized.

Bingo.

 

[Lady Gaia]

That character is 100% fetishization. She's a sexy tribal bunny amalgam of ideas designed specifically to appeal to you sexually. If she is ALSO something else, that doesn't change the fact that she is ALSO a sexy tribal bunny girl. These characters are reverse engineered to explain their sexualization which does not change the fact that they're sexualized.

So true. It's hard to believe anyone argued with a straight face that she was just scantily clad because of her amazon-like environment. Every single aspect of her design is aimed at appealing to men, right down to the ridiculous stiletto heels she wears. Try wearing those in a forest environment and tell me what practical purpose they serve. They're just there to elongate her legs and make her look appealing to men.

If the female character is dressed sexily for no reason (that is, there's a disconnect between her appearance and personality), then it's probably sexualization.

There's definitely some truth here, but a sexy character with a bubble/flirty personality would be consistent while still reeking of sexualization. If you wouldn't want to be her for reasons having nothing to do with appealing to others then it's almost certainly not empowerment.

 

[Wulfram]

It can be complex... but it's also pretty blatantly obvious a lot of times.

No, the bunny girl in the bikini and metal thong is not an ambiguous case.

 

[Kinyou]

.


Generally without any deeper context I'd go by the rule if a woman created the character and design, it's empowerment, if a male did it's sexualization.

Empowerment =/= Sexualization
Sexualization = Objectification

That seems terribly simplyfied. Just because a character is designed by a woman doesn't mean it can't be an objectified character. Same goes the other way around. A man can write a sexy character without objectifying her. I don't see why the gender of the creator should matter so much

And secondly, I don't agree with Sexualization = Objectification. Objectification implies that there is no personality or agency behind the character, that it's literally just there as an object. But you can create a sexualized character with a strong personality that isn't contradicted by strong sexualization. i.e. Irene Adler from the new Sherlock Holmes series.

 

[Mesoian]

I actually 100% agree with this. A lot of people seem to find comfort in organizing the 9billion+ of us on this planet into simple groups. They want a quick "1 size fits all" label for as large of a group as possible so the numbers will work in the system/society they think they can make.

Would love for the day to come where people start caring about individuals.

It's hard to sell to individuals.

 

[Servbot24]

Also the "cool" factor is perfectly legitimate. Boob windows usually don't look that cool, granted, but not everything in a video game needs to be completely practical as long as it looks awesome. For example a lot of superheroes wear skin tight clothing because to varying degrees it looks "cool". It's impractical, it's sexy, and it's perfectly fine. That of course depends on the game - wouldn't make sense for characters in TLOU to be looking like Dante. Again context is huge.

 

[ActuallyHulk]

On the whole chainmail bikini practical wear thing I always feel like it's more about what the character is. If she's a knight or something then she should be covered head to toe in heavy armor. If she's a sorceress or something I see no problem with her having cleavage bearing robes and high heels, as ideally she's not supposed to be getting hit in the first place. A rogue like character should be wearing light clothing, preferably tight so it doesn't get hooked on something, with flat shoes for quick movement.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[V_Arnold]

Only a side note, but I think that the most important thing here to recognize is that it is okay if we have an argument about any of this. It is okay to disagree. It is okay to say "i interpret this this way, others might not". The conclusion should not be "AND THEREFORE EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG".

The conclusion should be: and that is why we all have subjective worldview. And it also does not mean that stuff is immune to criticism. But it is important to realize that one person's criticism is another's praise. Literally. There is someone in the world who hates stuff XY for exactly the same reasons why you love XY.

 

[aeolist]

So to be clear, the argument seems to be - and correct me if I'm wrong - if you live in a Western/Eastern society that has issues with objectifying women/sexism, it is impossible for a person within that society to create a fictional culture that has very nuanced views of sexuality? That it must automatically be assumed the reason they are doing it is to appease the lesser demons in that culture?

certainly not, i'm just saying that in the example case you give that absolutely did not happen. the "culture" of the viera is not explored well, they are not contextualized interestingly, and most viera characters are not given much in the way of distinctive personalities or motivations. they are the definition of fetishized sexy window dressing.

you can make characters like that in your works, you just have to do it well or face some criticism for it.

I find this problematic. Because as I said, Fran was contextualized within a culture. Here's a woman who lives amongst other women in a tribal hunter/gatherer/mystic community. Viera are segmented between all male communities and all female communities. She is necessarily going to have a unique view on sexuality and what is appropriate to wear.

Now we can then take her out of that context and say "well, in Japan, scantily clad bunny girls are a thing, and so it's clear what the purpose is."

But I think it can be both, and I think the issue is we're losing the nuance in these types of conversations.

i think there's not much nuance in these conversations because game developers are extraordinarily bad about creating these types of characters. i can't think of any offhand that would be a good example for your argument.

 

[Lime]

Tribal societies across the planet frequently wear almost nothing.

If I live in Japan, can I not draw inspiration from those societies without it being viewed within the prism of the cultural problems Japan has regarding sexism?

read my reply to your post on the previous page

 

[komorebi]

I don't leave that determination up to anyone but myself. What's sexualization to you may not be sexualization to me. And the same goes for empowerment.

This, and only this.

 

[tcrunch]

Calling the Mother Majesty K&P sketch.

 

[Renzoku]

I like to think most women are not brainwashed idiots who need to be empowered by video games, or any other media.

Instead, they're well versed in their own worth, and the only thing that the sexualization of a female actually means in a game is how much the creator felt like making a hot chick in a game because his audience is mostly made up of other people also like hot chicks.

 

[pinkurocket]

Sometimes the most feminized image is the most empowering. Like drag queens, who take exaggerated elements of womanhood to give the illusion of being women for entertainment. They celebrate and appreciate womanhood, yet at the same time will often give sexualized performances. Being sexy or showing of sexiness is not something that is wrong. Therefore I don't think sexualized images of women in videogames are 'insulting,' as fetishized as they can get. It's about how it's presented. There's nothing empowering about a weak female character that needs a strong male figure to guide her along, or rescue her.

 

[Akainu]

As soon as I saw this thread I thought of the nonsense in the xv thread and lo and behold. XD

 

[ChronotriggerJM]

If the character wants to be sexy, embracing femininity, and perhaps has a more flirtatious demeanor, I'm all for the added sex appeal. People were going bonkers of how sexualized Eva was in MGS3, but that was her choice, that's what she wanted in the context of the universe.

I'm all for examples like Fran. They didn't make her overtly busty, they didn't have all these bent over shots of her, no camera panning into her ass etc etc etc. She was Tribal. Did they need to model it that way? No, not necessarily, but was it soooo over sexualized? Not really in my opinion.

Now Lulu in FFX? Definitely oversexualized lol. Not flirtatious in the slightest, constant cleavage shots, and for literally no good reason.

 

[The Technomancer]

http://exploringbelievability.blogspot.com/2012/08/getting-to-root-of-sexist-design.html



Does that FFXV character make sense in-universe in terms of her incredibly exposed cleavage? How is it treated within the game and in relation to other characters and the setting itself? And do video games usually suffer from having female characters intended to titillate players? These are the questions that help answer this topic.

Thanks for the link, this is a good read

 

[Foggy]

So to be clear, the argument seems to be - and correct me if I'm wrong - if you live in a Western/Eastern society that has issues with objectifying women/sexism, it is impossible for a person within that society to create a fictional culture that has very nuanced views of sexuality? That it must automatically be assumed the reason they are doing it is to appease the lesser demons in that culture?

I find this problematic. Because as I said, Fran was contextualized within a culture. Here's a woman who lives amongst other women in a tribal hunter/gatherer/mystic community. Viera are segmented between all male communities and all female communities. She is necessarily going to have a unique view on sexuality and what is appropriate to wear.

Now we can then take her out of that context and say "well, in Japan, scantily clad bunny girls are a thing, and so it's clear what the purpose is."

But I think it can be both, and I think the issue is we're losing the nuance in these types of conversations.

I've often heard that until female representation is fixed then it doesn't matter what the authorial intent is, it's still contributing to a larger issue. When the concern is that over-sexualization is so pervasive then even a justifiable instance of it is part of this larger entity then it won't matter what the context is. In short, it doesn't matter what the context is, it's part of the problem. After all, this problem is a larger trend and these larger trends is what shapes a culture's views. It's all a well-meaning attempt to effect change at large, but in some cases it is an attempt to stifle certain creative avenues. It's become an odd development in how things are discussed. "X" trope is a bad thing, since this game shares "X" trope therefore this game is now contributing to this bad thing. I can't say I agree with this line of thinking.

 

[UrbanRats]

Furthermore "empowerment" is fine but not every single character in a game should be some empowered badass goddess. There are shitty people out there, weak people, insecure people, immoral people, etc. And they can all be fantastic characters.

Well that's the other thing that drives me mad, when people see a charcter as "good" just because they're "a female badass" regardless of how deep she actually is.
I'd take a "broken" character like Heather any day, over a female version of Kratos.

That said, however i'll say given how most games work in terms of mechanics, having powerful characters is the standard archetype you'd go with, and most don't have much space for depth in the first place.
Like if you're playing Ninja Gaiden, it'd be cool if they had one female character that was designed to look badass above looking sexy, even if they still wouldn't have any depth to them, because it's goddamn Ninja Gaiden.

 

[Amneisac]

I think handling it on a case-by-case basis is fine if you're splitting hairs, but the fact is that there are so many examples of oversexualization that eventually you have to realize that the explanations sound more like excuses. Oh she looks like that because of x,y,z backstory - well, why is it that the backstory always makes the women reveal more skin? Why are none of their backstories ever motivation to actually conceal themselves?

So basically, you can say that any one example of female sexualtion in games might be valid, or might fit the character, but why do to the undeniable, and overwhelming majority of female characters have conveniently appropriate backstories to be overly sexualized?

 

[Madness]

What is this incessant need to have content creators bend to the will of the vocal communities? Criticism is fine, it's warranted. But what are you criticizing? Hey this guy drew this character in a way I don't like, therefore it should be changed. Ignoring the fact that it is probably what the creator intended.

Games are a business. Games are heavily marketed and it's a billion dollar industry that analyzes every aspect of itself. They know what sells, what their demographics want and what they don't want. What people just cannot seem to fathom is that someone wants to do something for the complete opposite reason of someone else.

Also, sex sells. Sexualization sells. It's why even when they try and tone down over sexuality of characters, they are still what people would consider attractive or beautiful. James Cameron spoke of in Avatar why Zoe Saldana's Na'vi character looked so much like her. Because he knew that the male demographic needed to build an attachment to her character, a "my waifu" type relationship. If the alien looked menacing or hostile, it wouldn't work. So he settled on a look where she looks feminine, humanized, attractive, etc. It's why certain companions in games are dressed a certain way or act a certain way. Why Cortana looks the way she does in Halo 4. Why Anya looked the way she did in gears of War.

It's crazy how downright prudish/puritanical some of the criticism becomes during some of the debates. It seems everyone should be covered in loose jackets, hoodies, jeans and t shirts with basic casual shoes etc.

 

[onetoescape]

Developers can not win as things get way to over analysed. Imo we are going to see less or bland female characters now. This is not good either. While having overly sexualized female characters with no context is poor.

 

[Servbot24]

certainly not, i'm just saying that in the example case you give that absolutely did not happen. the "culture" of the viera is not explored well, they are not contextualized interestingly, and most viera characters are not given much in the way of distinctive personalities or motivations. they are the definition of fetishized sexy window dressing.

None of the characters in that game have terribly distinctive personalities, deep culture or nuance. You can't pick one out of all the shallow characters in the game and say that one! is the problem. The fact is that most game writers are just not good, which usually means we don't have a lot of meaningful emotional context to work with.

 

[Corpekata]

Problem with authorial intent is well, authors are kinda dumb sometimes. Far Cry 3 writer would have you believe he wrote a masterful satire. Doesn't make it true. I think video game fans place way too much faith in the artist's vision, especially given the focus tested nature of a lot of games tends to undermine that in the first place.

Most other mediums are fine with criticizing the content of their creatives but video game fans are at times weirdly defensive about it. Give them way too much credit.

 

[ishibear]

I understand that what you're saying Is essentially true, but does that mean we can't have cultures who wear very little clothes in their games? As an anthropologist, I love a variety of fictional cultures, and a very significant portion of real cultures are mostly naked. If you want to depict tropical people, they will almost certainly wear little more than a loin cloth/bikini. Those cultures are real and significant. If we want either depict them or realistic fictional cultures, you need to have that or else you're white washing their culture to fit western sensibilities. That's wildly culturally disrespectful.

I think the most important thing is agency, OP. We shouldn't strive just to depict exclusively strong females characters. We should create female characters with depth, motivation, cultural background, and a realistic place within the world. I think I saw Kelly Sure DeConnick (prominent female comic book writer, a medium dealing with this same issue) say that she just wants to be sure her female characters aren't just sexy lampshades. If a sexy lampshade could replace the character, it's nothing but a sexual object. The character should have a motivation in every scene, hopes and goals of some sort. I could be misattributing that concept but I think it was her. Some female characters will own their sexuality, others will hide it, and for others it's not very important - whether they're wearing a lot of clothes or none at all.

This is such a wonderful post and the bolded is especially significant.

The truth is, sexualized characters isn't the problem. The problem is that many of them are just that and there's little variety for female characters. Either they're sexualized or the generic strong type. We need more female characters with depth and goals so that even if they're sexualized, it's still obvious that they're more than that.

 

[Nairume]

Tribal societies across the planet frequently wear almost nothing.

I already addressed this.

Secluded tribal societies do this, yes. Specifically ones that have little access to practical materials for making clothes. Again, the Yanomami, one of the most famous examples of an isolated tribal community existing into the modern era (and a common source of many images of naked indigenous peoples), started to adopt clothing once they had access to it.

The Viera are clearly in constant contact with Ivalice society, to the point that there is a sizable community of Viera living in Rabanastre. They clearly have access to materials and technology to produce intricate clothing items, to the point where they wear detailed forged metal armor. I'm more than willing to accept that there could be some cultural excuse given for why they value sexualized clothes over practicality, but the game never gives one. It's just "hey, sexy bunny girls living in paradise with no men to be seen, have at it boys"

 

[Tigress]

Exactly.

EDIT: Moved up for visability.



I'll respond to this part.

The fallacy of this argument is that one culture is real and one isn't. Nonexistant people from fantasy stories are not the same as an actual population of actual people with cultural roots that are traceable beyond some game designer's imagination.

That character is 100% fetishization. She's a sexy tribal bunny amalgam of ideas designed specifically to appeal to you sexually. If she is ALSO something else, that doesn't change the fact that she is ALSO a sexy tribal bunny girl. These characters are reverse engineered to explain their sexualization which does not change the fact that they're sexualized.

It's the same argument people use to defend Tifa from FF7. In "her lifestyle," she is on the run a lot and wears her clothes to aid fast movement. Except you know what runners don't wear? Suspenders and boots. The extent of Tifa's sexualization basically boils down to an exposed midriff and huge breasts, which is really tame by sexy tribal bunny girl standards, but pretending "it's because she has to move fast!" is pretty lame.

Pretty much this.

Personality wise I liked the Veila (sp?) character in FFXII. But it always bugged me that her and her society were obviously designed to be eye candy. And this post nails it right on the head, it's one thing for a real culture that happened to develop those standards, it's another for a fantasy culture that some one designed purposely for a story where those elements are carefully crafted to elicit some sort of emotion. Especially when they don't put a real strong reason why the culture would be that way (hell, if they could actually come up with a realistic to the world explanation that would be one thing. But in FFXII they really don't. They just happen to dress that way. And it's obviously designed in a way to be appealing to males of this culture...).

But I will say at least they gave her a personality and didn't just treat her as eye candy only. That is far better than the treatment of many female characters.

 

[Not]

In our planet, there are many societies that do not have the same western view of sex that we do. Consider Ratanakiri people, who build love huts where their teenage kids can have sex. As young as 11-13 years old!

Reading up on it, that's actually an awesome custom, because it appears to give girls the final say in their sex lives early on with out shaming them whatsoever.

Yang Na is 16, and her parents built her a girl’s house when she was 13 years old. She sleeps alone, and if a boy pays her a visit, she will decide whether or not she wants to let him in. Sometimes they stay up all night talking. It’s entirely up to her, she said, and she feels very much in control: “I have the power to sleep with a boy if I want, but if I don’t like him, I always say no, and he goes away.”

It's at the very least more progressive than your average Baptist church congregation.

I agree that any woman with a backstory like that would make her, for the most part, empowered, despite anyone who tried to sexualize her by calling her a "lolita" or "experienced" or something disgusting like that. However, this is my point: as far as it is possible, and even in the case of fictional female characters, let the woman decide.

I still can't believe this ancient custom in a third-world country is more progressive towards women than the majority of America.