This is one of the most common deflections when the issue of how women are portrayed comes up. It’s known as a false equivalence – the idea that two things presented together as equal when in fact they aren’t. In this case, the idea that just because women have exaggerated physiques doesn’t mean they’re sexist because the men are just as exaggerated too. Of course, this doesn’t work for many reasons. To start with, it assumes – falsely – that the things that women find sexy are the same things that guys find sexy; that is, the exaggerated secondary sex characteristics. But we’ll get to that in a second.
The other issue is the reason for the exaggeration. Comics and games are fantasy true, but the fantasy aspect differs when it comes to male and female characters. Male characters are a power fantasy; the large muscles and massive torsos are visual signs that this character is an unstoppable powerhouse. Kratos doesn’t look the way he does because Sony Computer Entertainment did focus-market studies and found that women reacted best to that design; he looks the way he does because he represents the powerful alpha-male that gamers want to be.
The women, on the other hand, are sexual fantasies. These are the rewards for the player – the character’s love-interest, the motivation to complete the game. They’re designed as eye-candy; they’re intended as something to be consumed, not something to escape into. Women like to fantasize about being desirable yes, but they also like to be powerful, and their definition of what they would consider to be sexy and powerful doesn’t mean battle-bikinis and thongs of power.
But hey, I’m a guy. It’s easy for me to sit here and proclaim what women find sexy, but I could be talking out of my ass. So why not take it to the source? I put out a completely unscientific poll on Facebook and Twitter about characters that women find sexy – video games, comics, anime, whatever. And the results? Well, let’s compare.
Up top we have the exaggerated figures that are supposedly sexy.
And here are the characters my female readers find sexy:
Notice a trend here? These are not the massive beefcakes alpha-males that are supposedly as equally objectified as Kasumi, Ayane or Ivy. These men have longer torsos with much leaner builds; they’re built like swimmers rather than weight-lifters. They’re not men who scream “unstoppable physical power”. They’re lithe and dextrous, not barrel-chested juggernauts with treestumps for limbs.
And the other critical factor: it’s not just their builds that make them sexy. Gambit, for example is attractive because of his personality and his situation; he’s tortured because he can’t physically touch the woman he loves. Nightcrawler is the laughing swashbuckler, full of wit and flirty charm. Jareth is dark and mysterious and just a little dangerous and oozes sexuality.
Yes, the men are exaggerated as much as the women. But it’s the intent and the message that make all of the difference.
The part I find most baffling about the claims that men suffer from the same objectification and sexualization as women is I can never, for the life of me, think of a popular product that has:
Plot essential scenes taking place inside a male strip bar, a strip bar that is introduced with loving panning shots over the performers bodies.
Sincere marketing campaigns for non-romantic productions focusing entirely on the sexual characteristics and flirtatious manner of the male lead.
A scandal where it turns out the creators accidentally released imagery of a male lead nude, imagery that never needed to be created for the production in the first place.
A video game rumor that there’s a key function to unlock “naked mode” so you can see the male protagonist running around naked
Part of the reason why some people seem to think that men are sexualized is, ironically, because male sexuality is so rarely put on display as enticement that it creates a mirage effect. People who assume it must be there start seeing it everywhere rather than realizing it’s just not there.
Bringing this back – but also expanding on it because if there’s one thing we’ve learned, it’s that people in denial will desperately cling to Raiden in Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty having a brief section where he’s stripped naked in the final leg of the game.
Of course, Raiden isn’t sexualized in this section, it’s not a random skin flash like the female characters in Metal Gear games are subjected to and he doesn’t breathe though his skin. It’s actually got a very specific storytelling purpose. Don’t believe me?
And of course, for those who keep insisting that various Snakes wearing skin tight outfits when they sometimes have their ass in the frame as part of the game mechanics – (MGSV spoilers in vid) his flaunting is strictly amateur.
I think it was stupid of their management to do it, as does the article author. Why is this allowed for a woman:
But not this for a man:
There actually is a male version of that Egyptian outfit that shows quite a bit of skin too, but nothing like it does for the female version,but there are plenty of female-only outfits that are very scanty too. The worst of the lot is this one:
That’s why the April Fool’s joke worked so well — Funcom was poking fun at their own propensity for the double-standard. And that’s why I’m so upset with their management’s decision to pull the mankini outfit.
For grins, here’s a shot a blogger friend of mine took before they got yanked:
You’ll note the 3rd male in the shot is wearing a traditional speedo, and that’s been left in the game. I don’t see that it exposes any less skin than the mankini. I just don’t get it.
Well I suppose it was too much to hope that every executive in gaming would be as cool as Mark Long.
But really, after people have laughed and supported the joke is not the time to shut it down and try to pretend that it never happened.
Especially since the whole point of a mankini is that you can never unsee it.
– wincenworks
Apparently fans speculated it to be a copyright issue (but it’s highly unlikely)… Maybe Funcom wanted to be safe than sorry for not asking 20th Century Fox about official Borat licensing or something? ;P
I think it was stupid of their management to do it, as does the article author. Why is this allowed for a woman:
But not this for a man:
There actually is a male version of that Egyptian outfit that shows quite a bit of skin too, but nothing like it does for the female version,but there are plenty of female-only outfits that are very scanty too. The worst of the lot is this one:
That’s why the April Fool’s joke worked so well — Funcom was poking fun at their own propensity for the double-standard. And that’s why I’m so upset with their management’s decision to pull the mankini outfit.
For grins, here’s a shot a blogger friend of mine took before they got yanked:
You’ll note the 3rd male in the shot is wearing a traditional speedo, and that’s been left in the game. I don’t see that it exposes any less skin than the mankini. I just don’t get it.
Well I suppose it was too much to hope that every executive in gaming would be as cool as Mark Long.
But really, after people have laughed and supported the joke is not the time to shut it down and try to pretend that it never happened.
Especially since the whole point of a mankini is that you can never unsee it.
– wincenworks
Apparently fans speculated it to be a copyright issue (but it’s highly unlikely)… Maybe Funcom wanted to be safe than sorry for not asking 20th Century Fox about official Borat licensing or something? ;P
Ultimately, most things that are offensive are also lazy and unoriginal; because you can’t reach that point of view by looking at the world honestly…You reach that point of view by taking short cuts and by just sort of repeating what someone else told you.
Bringing this back as a reminder point not just to the people who insist that something which has the exact same result as before is creative and new, but also for the people who keep insisting that “it was always like this, you can’t complain”.
– wincenworks
Posted on
Ultimately, most things that are offensive are also lazy and unoriginal; because you can’t reach that point of view by looking at the world honestly…You reach that point of view by taking short cuts and by just sort of repeating what someone else told you.
Bringing this back as a reminder point not just to the people who insist that something which has the exact same result as before is creative and new, but also for the people who keep insisting that “it was always like this, you can’t complain”.
As Ami of eschergirls and lady-knight- (in her comment) noted, it seems like Ange intended their comic to be subversive of fantasy clichés (so female virgins slay dragons instead of being kidnapped by them), but the execution indulges in harmful narratives (like demonizing women’s sexuality).
I don’t really think that letting scantily-clad warriors die for drama justifies making them scantily-clad in the first place.
It may work in comedy, but La geste des chevaliers dragons(or at least the first issue, the only one I managed to read) never makes fun of those costumes, just assumes we’re supposed to accept them as a sign of female empowerment or some other misogynistic bullshit.
The only character that commented on Jaïna’s non-armor was framed as a sexist dude who’s jealous of dragon slayer’s status, so… yeah, the readers probably weren’t supposed to agree with him.
While Franco-Belgian comics (bande desineé) have the advantage of more liberal views on depicting sexuality and nudity than American mainstream comics do, it doesn’t mean they never indulge in pointless and gratuitous sexualization. As my Female Armor Rhetoric Bingo points out, cultural differences don’t justify double standard.
Oh yeah, I also wanted to reiterate that bikini-clad warrior deaths played for dramafail to be dramatic, considering battle damage is a natural consequence of fighting in a skimpy armor.
Incidentally I have an issue of ‘La geste des chevaliers dragons’ in my reference pile, because the cityscapes and castles are fantastic, I just thought I should point out that the characters wearing very little armour tend to be savagely eviscerated for their stupidity, not that it isn’t incredibly fan servicy and ridiculous despite that, but at least there are no inexplicably impervious navels.
As Ami of eschergirls and lady-knight- (in her comment) noted, it seems like Ange intended their comic to be subversive of fantasy clichés (so female virgins slay dragons instead of being kidnapped by them), but the execution indulges in harmful narratives (like demonizing women’s sexuality).
I don’t really think that letting scantily-clad warriors die for drama justifies making them scantily-clad in the first place.
It may work in comedy, but La geste des chevaliers dragons(or at least the first issue, the only one I managed to read) never makes fun of those costumes, just assumes we’re supposed to accept them as a sign of female empowerment or some other misogynistic bullshit.
The only character that commented on Jaïna’s non-armor was framed as a sexist dude who’s jealous of dragon slayer’s status, so… yeah, the readers probably weren’t supposed to agree with him.
While Franco-Belgian comics (bande desineé) have the advantage of more liberal views on depicting sexuality and nudity than American mainstream comics do, it doesn’t mean they never indulge in pointless and gratuitous sexualization. As my Female Armor Rhetoric Bingo points out, cultural differences don’t justify double standard.
Oh yeah, I also wanted to reiterate that bikini-clad warrior deaths played for dramafail to be dramatic, considering battle damage is a natural consequence of fighting in a skimpy armor.
