The tawdry female bosses are tiresome, and we could do with more male fanservice.

[Driavna]

You are missing the point and instead serving up quite a loaded question.

But it's a fair question and I like to think most double standards are the results of social inequality issues. I want to be as unbiased as I possibly can, and perhaps it's easier for me to do so as I can platonically appreciate both male and female gender as a male myself.

To start, before sexism can be brought into the picture we must first acknowledge gender representation, sexual objectification, and sexualization. Catering purely towards any one side is sexist when you know your audience is nearly 50 50 male female and that the game's content is not purely for said purpose.

Female characters are the ones mostly objectified while male characters are not. Females are also often the only gender objectified and or sexualized. This is the crux of the sexist argument. The argument being that this objectification takes a sole gender and reduces them to their sexualized "goods". Let's take a look at ffxiv. We can make men look attractive, sexualized, hypersexualized, but not objectified. Let's rewind back to the forum post that suggested a bulge slider. Males only have a muscular slider. Females have breast slider, now butt mod, and we also have a very VERY revealing viera race thong. Are these necessary features or are they purposed to be sexualized which can then lead to objectification across the board ? Do you see where I'm going ?

Let's flip it. Many people do not want to see a male bulge. And what could be sexualized or objectified has been neutered via censored nipples and the smoothest pelvis. Let's remember that objectification targets those "goods". SE seems to have taken an opinion.

If you're astute enough, you can observe the correlation of SE's character development vs objectification/sexualization when she is apart of a serious plotline.

It's important to be able to see how gender representation and objectification exists in games as it can relate to sexism. Females are almost always the sole objectified, sexualized, and stereotyped party and therefore reaches into sexist territory when there is no equalizer. And yes, this goes vice versa, but there is a slight difference I feel. It is not easy to do such to a male. It's easy to sexualize a male, but not to objectify him. And if we are able to objectify him, does it even have the same impact of objectifying a female ?

No one is saying that it would not be sexist to flip the coin on men. Rather, it's sexist to only sexualize and objectify a sole gender for the purpose of a select gender's gaze. The hand revealed in doing this says that this gender is meant to be sexualized and objectified for their gender while the other gender is either not worthy of it or too higbrow for it.

There is a lot of nuance in your question and I like that it made me think for quite a few hours here.

I disagree. From my point of view is an attempted justification to allow one thing and not the other. Both genders are subjected to objectification and, very often unfair, expectations. A good example of this is how people talk about "male power fantasy" but ignore "female power fantasy".

Anyway, is a rabbit hole I do not wish to travel.