Because fictional characters do not have the capacity to make choices. Because they are not REAL people.
Power Girl and Starfire did not CHOOSE to fight evil in skimpy, revealing outfits. It is not their PERSONAL CHOICE to wear those clothes. They are fictional characters and their wardrobes are under the control of the author and artist.
Dumbledore did not CHOOSE to stay in the closet as a personal and professional choice because that was his right as a person. He is a fictional character. The fact that his sexuality was left at only vague subtext and only revealed through word of god was a deliberate decision made by the author.
Fictional characters are fictional characters. They do not make their own choices.
Addendum to the rule: for the same reasons, you can not argue that criticism “shames” a character for their appearance or behavior.
And just for the record, seeing what kind of responses this post received before we got to reblog it: NO, the fact that fictional characters tend to grow and take a life of their own still does not mean they have agency.
No matter how developed a fictional person is, they’re still written by a real person (or people) who have their own biases and rationalizations. Just because some “choices” feel natural to the author doesn’t mean they’re objectively plausible “choices” for a character to make within the given narrative.
Sometimes the choice, like (in case of what our blog critiques) decision to wear a sexualized costume to battle, can be explained by specific circumstances. But in most circumstances or with other explanations, the same choice can be plain silly and inconsistent with the rest of established story/worldbuilding.
While the article focuses on the cell phones, I was personally impressed by the concept art also being interested in which parts where comfortable and what challenges costumes presented.
Creating designs based off needs and functionality can do a lot to build immersion and tell stories via the visuals.
It’s also particularly timely given how many people seem to assume that the existence of cosplayers means a costume is perfect and hence above criticism – clearly at some of the people who design the costumes believe there’s always room for improvement.
While the article focuses on the cell phones, I was personally impressed by the concept art also being interested in which parts where comfortable and what challenges costumes presented.
Creating designs based off needs and functionality can do a lot to build immersion and tell stories via the visuals.
It’s also particularly timely given how many people seem to assume that the existence of cosplayers means a costume is perfect and hence above criticism – clearly at some of the people who design the costumes believe there’s always room for improvement.
Far too often I see people jump at feminists who criticize sexist designs on female characters with, “They’re just showing how confident they are in their sexuality! We need more sex-positive women!”
Yet, these characters never in the game ever make any hint of their sexuality, whether it be through flirting, being unashamed of their sexual behavior, defending the sexual choices of others, or wearing revealing clothing as casual wear (i.e. not wearing battle armor that exposes their entire chest.)
Instead, anytime there are “sex-positive” women in gaming that are vocal about their sexuality and confidence in such, they are almost always a villain. Yet, I never see these people defend these characters, or take note that the only time that a woman in a game is confident in her sexuality, it’s because she’s an ~evil seductress~, and the game developers use it as an exploit rather than a character trait.
How about instead of shouting at feminists that point out the needlessly and nonsensical revealing clothing on female game characters that it’s supposed to be because they’re “sex-positive”, you instead take the energy and criticize game developers that everytime there is a “sex-positive” women in gaming, she’s evil and it is instead seen as a character flaw?
I’ve alludedbefore that it’s possible to create a female character who dresses skimpily to express how sexually liberated and confident about her own body she is… possible in theory, at least.
Also, as I mentioned in my Stafire-design-through-years article, character’s personal affairs DO NOT excuse what costume she “chooses” to do her job in, particularly when that job is FIGHTING. Especially while warrior men who are equally, if not more, sexually empowered, somehow don’t go around fighting crime in sexy male underwear. And again, a loincloth* on someone like Conan or Kratos is not the same as battle lingerie.
I feel like a large part of the FemShep fandom was that while much of the attire in Mass Effect is questionable – FemShep actually comes pretty close to meeting the “sex positive, not sex toy” criteria. Regardless of the options you pick, she’s competent and complicated.
When she goes into battle she’s kitted with armor, guns, badassery and the potential to be saintly or scary… then when you’re in the safety of your ship you can pick an outfit for her and go talk to your favorite crew member:
Making her vastly more sex positive and personally empowered than pretty much any other female protagonist… even if her outfits are not perfectly equal to BroShep’s and tend more towards hideous than hot.
(For those asking: We have the explanation for Quiet’s ridiculous outfit, and information on how her character is handled… a post will be forthcoming!)
Far too often I see people jump at feminists who criticize sexist designs on female characters with, “They’re just showing how confident they are in their sexuality! We need more sex-positive women!”
Yet, these characters never in the game ever make any hint of their sexuality, whether it be through flirting, being unashamed of their sexual behavior, defending the sexual choices of others, or wearing revealing clothing as casual wear (i.e. not wearing battle armor that exposes their entire chest.)
Instead, anytime there are “sex-positive” women in gaming that are vocal about their sexuality and confidence in such, they are almost always a villain. Yet, I never see these people defend these characters, or take note that the only time that a woman in a game is confident in her sexuality, it’s because she’s an ~evil seductress~, and the game developers use it as an exploit rather than a character trait.
How about instead of shouting at feminists that point out the needlessly and nonsensical revealing clothing on female game characters that it’s supposed to be because they’re “sex-positive”, you instead take the energy and criticize game developers that everytime there is a “sex-positive” women in gaming, she’s evil and it is instead seen as a character flaw?
I’ve alludedbefore that it’s possible to create a female character who dresses skimpily to express how sexually liberated and confident about her own body she is… possible in theory, at least.
Also, as I mentioned in my Stafire-design-through-years article, character’s personal affairs DO NOT excuse what costume she “chooses” to do her job in, particularly when that job is FIGHTING. Especially while warrior men who are equally, if not more, sexually empowered, somehow don’t go around fighting crime in sexy male underwear. And again, a loincloth* on someone like Conan or Kratos is not the same as battle lingerie.
I feel like a large part of the FemShep fandom was that while much of the attire in Mass Effect is questionable – FemShep actually comes pretty close to meeting the “sex positive, not sex toy” criteria. Regardless of the options you pick, she’s competent and complicated.
When she goes into battle she’s kitted with armor, guns, badassery and the potential to be saintly or scary… then when you’re in the safety of your ship you can pick an outfit for her and go talk to your favorite crew member:
Making her vastly more sex positive and personally empowered than pretty much any other female protagonist… even if her outfits are not perfectly equal to BroShep’s and tend more towards hideous than hot.
(For those asking: We have the explanation for Quiet’s ridiculous outfit, and information on how her character is handled… a post will be forthcoming!)
Posted on
Posted on
Look, I like alliteration as much as the next person – but I feel the fact that they needed to add “Warrior” into Jessica’s summary says a lot about the design priorities here.
Biana’s design in particular looks like someone tried to make her practical but then was forced to swap out the pants with thigh highs. Well, at least they didn’t put boobs on the weird blob thing.
I’m confused.. what is bad about this?
And in your other post about this you seemingly mock women/men who do work in Cabaret “I’m sure it’s just a co-incidence that all the others got actual occupations” like what.. are you even saying here.
Femme fatale != cabaret performer. Femme fatale is not an occupation. Femme fatale is a trope based in the fear that every beautiful and flirtatious woman is secretly planning to seduce you so that she can destroy you and take your stuff. It is insulting to cabaret performers and female performers in general to reduce them all down to such a thing.
Cabaret Hostess, Showgirl, Cigarette Girl, Barmaid, Musician, Can-Can Dancer, Stand Up Comedian, Waitress, Lounge Singer, Magician’s Assistant, Stage Kitten, – these are all jobs linked to cabaret that a woman might have. Standing on stage in a sexy outfit while one guy looks on is not any of these jobs or any other job.
Imagine they introduce the quartet like this:
“A beefcake bad boy, smouldering loner, charming show off and a cabaret hostess.”
Also imagine she’s dressed in similarly practical clothes instead of a fragile costume with high heels (x)
Now ask yourself: Why did she have to have a “sexy” job in the first place? Seriously, why can’t she be say? A mechanic like Grace Wagner was?
From the start of the 1920s to the end of the 1940s (The Golden Age of Burlesque) was a really interesting time for changes in roles for women in America and many other nations? Why would you want to only (badly) remember (and misrepresent) the showgirls?
I mean, look at the line up from the franchise that started the four survivors vs zombies games. Look at Zoey (college student and horror movie junkie) and Rochelle (assistant tv producer and Depeche Mode fan):
I’m confused.. what is bad about this?
And in your other post about this you seemingly mock women/men who do work in Cabaret “I’m sure it’s just a co-incidence that all the others got actual occupations” like what.. are you even saying here.
Femme fatale != cabaret performer. Femme fatale is not an occupation. Femme fatale is a trope based in the fear that every beautiful and flirtatious woman is secretly planning to seduce you so that she can destroy you and take your stuff. It is insulting to cabaret performers and female performers in general to reduce them all down to such a thing.
Cabaret Hostess, Showgirl, Cigarette Girl, Barmaid, Musician, Can-Can Dancer, Stand Up Comedian, Waitress, Lounge Singer, Magician’s Assistant, Stage Kitten, – these are all jobs linked to cabaret that a woman might have. Standing on stage in a sexy outfit while one guy looks on is not any of these jobs or any other job.
Imagine they introduce the quartet like this:
“A beefcake bad boy, smouldering loner, charming show off and a cabaret hostess.”
Also imagine she’s dressed in similarly practical clothes instead of a fragile costume with high heels (x)
Now ask yourself: Why did she have to have a “sexy” job in the first place? Seriously, why can’t she be say? A mechanic like Grace Wagner was?
From the start of the 1920s to the end of the 1940s (The Golden Age of Burlesque) was a really interesting time for changes in roles for women in America and many other nations? Why would you want to only (badly) remember (and misrepresent) the showgirls?
I mean, look at the line up from the franchise that started the four survivors vs zombies games. Look at Zoey (college student and horror movie junkie) and Rochelle (assistant tv producer and Depeche Mode fan):
