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

[Melichoir]

Ok I know this is a long one but there's a lot to unpack and I wanted to give your post appropriate attention.

If I could, I'd like to quote this in response from an article on Gamasutra which was quotes in our year 2011.

"Because there is a large presence of the heterosexual man’s identity in the development process and in gaming’s audience, the perceived “neutral” vision of game design takes on the influence of the socially appropriate interests specific to straight men. The lack of men’s sexualization is a product of the average straight guy’s impulse to avoid appearing or feeling gay. Men have a fig leaf of sorts when it comes to camera work and character design, while women get more attention and exposure. What sexual bits we do see are “safe” for heterosexual men to view without feeling like they’re watching something “gay,” such as muscular arms or exposed torsos. A common counter-argument concerns the issue of men’s impossible body image in games, which is definitely important, but mostly a different discussion to tackle. The aesthetic of muscles denote strength, agency, and power for the assumed male player to relate to, while emphasis on T&A when viewing women only serves as fan-service. Both rely on problematic ideals, but there is still a power relation present in theis representation that favors men."

Going by what you posted (as I dont have the article and dont have the full context of the quoted statement), Id say this is sophistry.

The bedrock of their premise is the identity of the developers and that the developer's identity informs (or rather dictates) their design choices. The first issue that should be apparent is that theyre insinuating that creatives cannot see or are predisposed to not see outside their identity groups. Being heterosexual man or having a large number of them means that your creative concepts will be through a heterosexual lens and not be able or have difficulty to design outside that lens. It makes an argument not only that teh sexuality of a person is a monolith; that the identity of a heterosexual man is universal simply on the basis of being sexually attracted to women. It removes the agency of the individual, their life experiences, personal preferences, or the ability to empathize or understand feelings or concepts outside their identity. It even removes the personal tastes and preferences of heterosexual men. We would not argue that a gay man finds the same exact things attractive on every man. Or that all gay men are the exact same in outlook or disposition. This then shouldnt be applied. In fact, we should more or less be striving to disassociate identity from decision, unless we want to suggest that a person's identity is chiefly responsible for their decision making process.

It gets worse because it divorces social norms from design decisions, as well as action/reaction and perceptions of the producer vs consumer. The fig leaf argument makes more sense of a society that is still contending with homophobia. The Hypermasculine "Gotta bang all them ladies" action heroes of the 70s, 80s, and 90s where they they did treat a man as a power fantasy broadly and women more as rewards was more in response to the perception creatives in media felt the public would respond. You want to maximize profits, make sure you hit the biggest target demo. Media, broadly, is a business and if hte cultural norms in a society are negative towards gay men, youre not likely to create characters that are overtly gay in nature or give off homosexual vibes. However, the argument put forth by the quoted segment says it is the reverse - the identity of creatives informed their decision making process and the public just accepted it, rather than devs making decisions based on their perception of how their audience would take things. Art has always been the forefront of change within a society (for better or worse) as it is artists who will push the boundaries in society in this or that direction. So it is rather strange to make the argument that because there are a bunch of heterosexual men in the game dev industry that this is why it's all geared towards heterosexual tastes, rather than devs reacting to a market which has preconceived notions about certain subjects and adjusting for it. This is why the content of games change based on the market theyre shipped too. Some games have been neutered and censored in other countries because of their markets reaction or perception to certain identity groups and Devs role with it cause while its an art form, its money.

What it does get right is that Exposed Torso's and Arms are a sexual aspect, but incorrectly states that theyre 'safe' for a straight man. How do they come to this conclusion as the 'shirt off moment' when a female lead sees the male 'exposed' and is intrigued by this. If the lens was about heterosexuality, the role should be reversed - there should be less male exposure. They attempt to justify this with the male power fantasy angle. Men are meant to self insert, but oddly the sentence before this provides an issue to their justification - impossible male body issues and the perception of inadequacy male audiences have with the depiction of men in the media. This runs counter to their claim - men arent inserting into the male lead, theyre actually being intimidated by it because hte media is implying you want the hot girl, gotta be a macho man built like a freight train. They imply as much when they say the aesthetic of muscles denote power and agency. To have power, and subsequently agency, and ultimately woo the lady, you gotta look like this.

This, btw, doesnt address the gay view point. While they suggest that women existed as fan service, the shirtless fit hunk of a man who is glistening isnt fan service for men who enjoy the male figure? Or heterosexual women that also enjoy the male figure? It also fails to address what is the female power fantasy in all of this is (yes, there is a female power fantasy). Are they suggesting that women dont want or have not wanted to self insert as the female lead in a movie or game? That is strictly about about straight male audiences inserting into the male lead but that this doesnt happen any other way? The quoted piece over simplifies way to many things and makes to many assumptions about the devs and market. At a glance, the argument makes sense, but it relies heavily tropes and assumptions, while ignoring other issues for it to remain functional.

Now to be clear, this isnt to say that you dont have fan service that is catered to heterosexual men, or that there has never been the objectification of women. What Im illustrating is what we have now vs 30-40 years ago. Take a look at male leads - In the 80s you had the Schwarzenegger action hero - Big Beefy Bulky, Carry a huge gun, shoot and blow stuff up, Over the top action. What do you got now? Men are much more modest in build and more balanced. We have more female leads in media, a wider selection of body types and sexualities and personalities and choices. The game industry, if we want to break this down, is still fairly heavily weighted with heterosexual men. If the argument given is because of a large presence of them dictates design choices, we should be a lot closer to the 80s in design archetype than what we have. What has changed, broadly, is the views society has had. Theyve shifted and evolved, and the devs are reacting to that shift.

When I say most guys dont give an 'F' anymore, this is what Im pointing to. The average person doesnt give a damn about that stuff anymore due to shifting norms in society. This doesnt mean that people dont have preferences. I am sure a straight gamer is going to want eye candy that better suits their tastes, much the same a gay gamer would like to have something for them. But having preference isnt the same as being opposed to something. And as far as Im concerned, lets just have it all. Lets show it all and be fine with it.

Bringing in personal experience as well, and I'm only in my 20s and perhaps being asian has a large part to do with it as well, the perception of how we see ourselves reflected in games can be one that exists on a subconscious plane. This entire idea is prevalent in some cultures and societies today. To say that this mode of thinking is outdated attempts to downplay the experience that people like me might have gone through despite ending up to believe against such oudated concepts. But to deny this belief doesn't exist or is not in the minds of "most" men is a bit folly to say it exists only 30-40 years ago. We are not all progressive people and or countries. I'd like to challenge the "most" men concept especially when it comes to marketing a game.

Im not saying it doesnt exist - nor am I referring to external cultures. If I wasnt clear, I was specifically addressing the US and western cultures and game markets broadly. I am well aware that many cultures still have a lot of issues with homophobia (or even xenophobia, sexism, and etc broadly) compared to the US. What I tend to see is that when you see instances of this within the context of the US gaming market, its done in 1 of 3 contexts:

1) Selective bias - An article, report, FB post, etc that highlights an instance of the issue. Usually, it's paired with something that says "See this is still a widespread problem", but the lack of context or broader picture distorts the issue. If you are constantly fed a feed of negative one off instances without the broader context of where they fit into, it can appear something is a lot more negative than it is. The big problem wiht this one is that if you want to shape public opinion about something, selecting the most negative interactions and blasting those at the top of the list while downplaying (or ignoring) the good interactions can skew public perception pretty quickly if youre not informed. If I was on FB and saw nonstop posts about FFXIV being full of homophobes and I didnt play the game - my impression would be "Holy crap what is wrong with this game." But I actually play this game quite extensively, and I know the environment it has. I would quickly identify that the posts are not painting an accurate picture. This cuts both ways, btw. Selecting instances to improve the image of a game while downplaying the negatives that are rife within it would be the same issue.

2) Misunderstanding - There are instances where something is taken as offensive because of misunderstandings. Sometimes people misspeak and dont mean ill will. rather htan fly off the handle, talking it out can resolve some of this.

3) Trolling - Something Ive learned through being in this internet environment is that people tend to conflate trolling with bigotry. A lot of trolling you see that ventures into the more disgusting commentary isnt trolling that's founded in bigotry (though there are undoubtedly trolls who are bigots through and through). It's founded in an attempt to screw iwth you. Poke and prod and say things to trigger you into becoming angry and playing more poorly. To get under your skin. Is it acceptable to say that kind of crap? No. Of course not. But it's weaponized and used as a means to f with people and seem counter culture and edgy. You noticed things like this in competitive games like LoL or Overwatch more frequently. The crap people might say in voice chat to rial up other players. You could tell it was BS because of how over the top and over it is and how people responded. If the troll hits a nerve, trolls went harder and more volatile. If it misses, they try to double down or change tact, try to find something else to piss you off with. You laugh it off and crush them harder, the more frustrated and volatile they become in that regards because their intended effect backfires. What worries me isnt the overt idiocy like that, but the casual comments that come up. The off handed slur or comment that you see. I see more of the former trolling than the latter casual bigotry now a days when I do even encounter it.

Beyond that, I have to ask you something - if you logically understand that outdated concepts shouldnt define you, why are you over generalizing yourself by your identity (I presume your identity at least by how you phrased what you said). Dont take this a personal attack on attributes you were born with, but rather a question of your mind set. Why would you let yourself be defined by your racial background or let that have such an impact on you? Does being asian inform your decisions, or does your life experiences, dreams, hopes, ambitions, failures, and very much thing personal things youve said and done define you. Does being Asian even matter as a concept, since its pretty damn vague? Asian is a broad ass term. The cultural outlooks of someone who is, for example, Mainland Chinese is different than Taiwanese, or of a Chinese american or Chinese britannian. The outlook of a persons cultural bg from mainland china is different than Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Phillipines, Guam, Cambodia, etc. Why refer to such a general term when discussing yourself as an individual? Then there's the even more tricky aspect when discussing identity that people need to be very vary of: The false equivalence of culture and race.

It's one thing to talk about your personal experiences, but another to suggest that as a broad vague group this is the case. It raises questions about why you have the view. If you want to share, thatd be cool, but the broad point Im making is why you are letting identity have a part of this discussion. Gamasutra, and many other outlets as of late, have been conflating or over emphasizing the conept of race and identity, eroding the concept of the individual within a society. That quote you took was from 2011, and they were referring to things in terms of identity, rather than a ton of nuanced individualistic factors. Why are we not discussing the individual and their motives, but rather collectivizing and assigning motive and intent based on a collective identity?

But this is getting well off into the political side of things, and I should try to steer back into the discussion and the core viewpoint Im holding.

Since the beginning of this thread's page, people have taken serious offence to the shallow title as if it's an attack on women. It's a criticism to SE's design team.
It's valid criticism. You can complain that the female bosses are too scantily clad when men are not given the same treatment. It's a fair view on SE's design, but then that will point back to the quote I put earlier. No one here is taking offence to primarily sexy female bosses. The offence is at the lack of the counterpart.

The thing I pointed out is what I mentioned to the OP: I dont mind nor care if we have more scantily clad men. Make every boss for the next xpac a hot guy in hot clothes. Make it all Eye Candy. Im down for whatever. But I will become irritated if we play this double standard game that crops up in discussions like these. Where people talk about objectification, the male gaze, how its all problematic and needs to be toned down/removed, but turn around and salivate and demand " More hot guys please!" This kind of double standard bothers me to no end. As a point, I think it was Kotaku who had an op ed from someone on their staff talking about women in games are all objectified and how bad objectification was, and 3 months later wrote an op ed about the top 10 or so hottest guys in video games. The very things they complained about all of a sudden was fine just because it wasnt female.

We want eye candy, lets have that eye candy. Eye Candy for all people of all stripes. Lets just be honest about it and say as much.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Side Commentary:

where's the male pec size slider then? or the unisex butt slider? as long as it's just for boobs, it's clearly marketed towards straight males only.

Body customization is something people are asking for. A slider to bigger/nicer pecs would go uncontested. But, then you have framing. If you were to believe Gamasutra's position, this is all in service of the male powerfantasy, Gay men be damned. You also undermine your point by pointnig to boob sliders, but dont acknowledge that they dont have a butt slider or waist slider. If this is all about the hetero marketing, why would you not have butt sliders on females as well? It's a trope, but a question that gets popped up for straight guys is are you a T or A kind of man. So there are obviously other factors at play and I feel you are over simplifying it.

But the best semi naked male body is already in the game.

Look upon the chicken nugget and despair, for youll never be as perfect as this.

[ElciaDeiLinus]

i said "marketed towards" not that no one else is allowe to like it. it's not explicitely marketed towards lesbians or bisexual women. it's marketed specifically towards straight makes, like it's been done for decades.

Must be why this company has been making shirtless pretty boys the norm for all that time. 'Sure, it appeals to others, but I have a bone to pick with straight men' as if a form of entertainment trying to entertain its main audience while also showing a long history of providing entertainment for smaller parts of the audience too is a bad thing.

'Like its been done for decades'- Tidus, shirtless handsome man with a nice face. Vaan, shirtless handsome man with a nice face. Kuja clearly isn't aimed at straight males. Locke, Zidane, Auron- highly charismatic and charming. FFXV's entire cast- overly handsome men that accompany you the entire game and get into a lot of scenarios and situations that are clearly not aimed at 'straight males'. Their willingness to make their main FF title game a bishounen, something that's aimed solely at appealing to people that are into men, kinda shows they're perfectly fine with giving things to everyone.

Also- let's talk customization. As a straight female, my biggest issue with the customizer isn't male customization, it's a lack of more sliders for my own character (butt, thighs, waist, arms, etc..), who's an extension of myself in game. If certain things are lacking specifically with male customization, sure that does limit my eye candy but it's going to effect me less than a limit to my character's customization. I think if anyone's going to be most annoyed at not having certain male customization it's going to be players who play male characters, which is predominantly straight males. Limiting the options of straight males using the game as an extension of themselves is catering to straight males... how?

It really feels like 'straight males' is being used as an argument in itself, that people think if they can bring that up it's an auto win and thus the offending party has to change their ways.

[VirusOnline]

Ok I know this is a long one but there's a lot to unpack and I wanted to give your post appropriate attention.

Going by what you posted (as I dont have the article and dont have the full context of the quoted statement), Id say this is sophistry.

The bedrock of their premise is the identity of the developers and that the developer's identity informs (or rather dictates) their design choices. The first issue that should be apparent is that theyre insinuating that creatives cannot see or are predisposed to not see outside their identity groups. Being heterosexual man or having a large number of them means that your creative concepts will be through a heterosexual lens and not be able or have difficulty to design outside that lens. It makes an argument not only that teh sexuality of a person is a monolith; that the identity of a heterosexual man is universal simply on the basis of being sexually attracted to women. It removes the agency of the individual, their life experiences, personal preferences, or the ability to empathize or understand feelings or concepts outside their identity. It even removes the personal tastes and preferences of heterosexual men. We would not argue that a gay man finds the same exact things attractive on every man. Or that all gay men are the exact same in outlook or disposition. This then shouldnt be applied. In fact, we should more or less be striving to disassociate identity from decision, unless we want to suggest that a person's identity is chiefly responsible for their decision making process.

I wouldn't call it sophistry as I've no intention of misleading anyone, but rather point out a valid argument for reasons the gaming market has developed its decisions. I didn't want to link the article for fear of some language that would get my post taken down for. But, the name of the article is "On Men's Sexualization in Video Games". It's main purpose is to reason why male sexualization is sparse in mainstream.

Now, I want to say first and foremost that designers are creatives by nature. But they are not 100% creatives as a corporate employee. They are as creative as their superiors, target market, scope, and genre allow them to be. Being a commission artist and being a game designer who works under SE are two different things. Your creativity can fluctuate to serve the requirements of any unique individual. Can a designer do the same at SE and to such a nuance degree ? I'd wager not, especially when concerning a global market. To do otherwise would certainly be progressive and welcoming, but would be just if not more, risky.

Identity is important, especially when it comes to a job such an industry saturated by men alone. There are even a smaller amount of those men who are LGBT if we factor in that the US population is comprised of at most ~5 % LGBT persons. When such a workplace is saturated, it's hard to take on the viewpoint of someone who is LGBT and or female and then reeavaluate your game. The best you can do is get generalized focus groups from the outside. I'm not saying it's 100 % unattainable, just hard to mass market towards and audience in which you have no perspective in.

It's for this reason that we see more creativity and boundary pushing in steam indie developers than would dare present in mainstream.

I'd argue that XIV does exactly what you state in the first paragraph. You don't get to choose your eye candy or fanservice or how it's designed. It's given to you. That aesthetic is rendered to what is considered attractive to the majority. If a game did all what you suggest, my god imagine the nuance.

We'd be redeveloping FFXIV into Sims 5 Deluxe.

The article says the identity of game developers and that of their audience, aka target market. I don't think it's strange to say at all. It's both, all. This points back to what I said about identity in the workplace. It is the identity in the design process that allows for a general or subconscious insight into their target audience. The statement didn't say these are the only criteria, but are instead highlighted here to show importance of how the decision process is affected.

What it does get right is that Exposed Torso's and Arms are a sexual aspect, but incorrectly states that theyre 'safe' for a straight man. How do they come to this conclusion as the 'shirt off moment' when a female lead sees the male 'exposed' and is intrigued by this. If the lens was about heterosexuality, the role should be reversed - there should be less male exposure. They attempt to justify this with the male power fantasy angle. Men are meant to self insert, but oddly the sentence before this provides an issue to their justification - impossible male body issues and the perception of inadequacy male audiences have with the depiction of men in the media. This runs counter to their claim - men arent inserting into the male lead, theyre actually being intimidated by it because hte media is implying you want the hot girl, gotta be a macho man built like a freight train. They imply as much when they say the aesthetic of muscles denote power and agency. To have power, and subsequently agency, and ultimately woo the lady, you gotta look like this.

This, btw, doesnt address the gay view point. While they suggest that women existed as fan service, the shirtless fit hunk of a man who is glistening isnt fan service for men who enjoy the male figure? Or heterosexual women that also enjoy the male figure? It also fails to address what is the female power fantasy in all of this is (yes, there is a female power fantasy). Are they suggesting that women dont want or have not wanted to self insert as the female lead in a movie or game? That is strictly about about straight male audiences inserting into the male lead but that this doesnt happen any other way? The quoted piece over simplifies way to many things and makes to many assumptions about the devs and market. At a glance, the argument makes sense, but it relies heavily tropes and assumptions, while ignoring other issues for it to remain functional.

I understand where you're going, but the scope of this article and my argument is not as abstract as your reply is. Its singular purpose is to reason why male sexualisation is not as prevalent as female sexualisation i relation to the majority target audience. It's unfortunate but I really have no opinion on this part.

Now to be clear, this isnt to say that you dont have fan service that is catered to heterosexual men, or that there has never been the objectification of women. What Im illustrating is what we have now vs 30-40 years ago. Take a look at male leads - In the 80s you had the Schwarzenegger action hero - Big Beefy Bulky, Carry a huge gun, shoot and blow stuff up, Over the top action. What do you got now? Men are much more modest in build and more balanced. We have more female leads in media, a wider selection of body types and sexualities and personalities and choices. The game industry, if we want to break this down, is still fairly heavily weighted with heterosexual men. If the argument given is because of a large presence of them dictates design choices, we should be a lot closer to the 80s in design archetype than what we have. What has changed, broadly, is the views society has had. Theyve shifted and evolved, and the devs are reacting to that shift.

The logic doesn't quite add up here. I'm very confused as to why you keep going back to such specific eras. The 80s doesn't denote through the ages what is a straight male. With that logic I could say let's go back to the 1800s, the 1700s, the baroque, the renaissance. How we view men and how men view themselves changes with each decade. What is a century ago is no longer in style or the male norm. Each age has what is considered mainstream, and the market moves towards that current mainstream. The 80s are done and over, we have a new male mainstream. In the US, it's probably Captain America's butt.

Im not saying it doesnt exist - nor am I referring to external cultures. If I wasnt clear, I was specifically addressing the US and western cultures and game markets broadly. I am well aware that many cultures still have a lot of issues with homophobia (or even xenophobia, sexism, and etc broadly) compared to the US.

Ah, well, the point becomes moot then. I wasn't aware we were singling out the US as this game markets to a lot of countries.

Beyond that, I have to ask you something - if you logically understand that outdated concepts shouldnt define you, why are you over generalizing yourself by your identity (I presume your identity at least by how you phrased what you said). Dont take this a personal attack on attributes you were born with, but rather a question of your mind set. Why would you let yourself be defined by your racial background or let that have such an impact on you? Does being asian inform your decisions, or does your life experiences, dreams, hopes, ambitions, failures, and very much thing personal things youve said and done define you. Does being Asian even matter as a concept, since its pretty damn vague? Asian is a broad ass term. The cultural outlooks of someone who is, for example, Mainland Chinese is different than Taiwanese, or of a Chinese american or Chinese britannian. The outlook of a persons cultural bg from mainland china is different than Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Phillipines, Guam, Cambodia, etc. Why refer to such a general term when discussing yourself as an individual? Then there's the even more tricky aspect when discussing identity that people need to be very vary of: The false equivalence of culture and race.

It's one thing to talk about your personal experiences, but another to suggest that as a broad vague group this is the case. It raises questions about why you have the view. If you want to share, thatd be cool, but the broad point Im making is why you are letting identity have a part of this discussion. Gamasutra, and many other outlets as of late, have been conflating or over emphasizing the conept of race and identity, eroding the concept of the individual within a society. That quote you took was from 2011, and they were referring to things in terms of identity, rather than a ton of nuanced individualistic factors. Why are we not discussing the individual and their motives, but rather collectivizing and assigning motive and intent based on a collective identity

No offence taken.

But let me state clearly : Identity is an important part of us. It affects how we relate to the world, to others. It affects how we react. Each and one of us here have allowed our identity to speak through us at one point. We are also a compilation of our experiences. You speak about the straight woman's and LGBT preference forgetting that you are also talking about an identity. If you also look at some of the posts, many people have inserted their identities here. Not just me.

That being said, I rather generalize myself than list off my experiences on a public forum. Without clarification it does take on the false equivalence. Put simply, I was alluding to the probability of my asian culture and family tradition and how it has defined much of my childhood. And please take note that I said "perhaps" traditional cultural upbringing influences my trail of thought. The same could go for how you speak about the inclinations of women and LGBT and generalize their identities. Why ? Because it is incredibly nuanced and to go into every aspect would be endless. Just as objectification is not inherently bad, so too is the same for generalization. It's the context it becomes used in and the purpose it serves.

As for the rest below, I agree.

[Melichoir]

I wouldn't call it sophistry as I've no intention of misleading anyone,...male sexualization is sparse in mainstream.

Oh I dont mean you yourself are using sophistry. I meant that gamasutra's snippet there is sophistry. But we disagree here I believe. I think the argument put forward by gamasutra is predicated on making assumptions about the intent of people as a collective based on identity factors. It surmises, based on the snippet, that why something happened is cause of the identity of a group of people, and does not address individual factors.

Now, I want to say first and foremost that designers are creatives by nature. ..., but would be just if not more, risky.

I agree with this broadly. And thats a nuance that the article snippet glosses over - that while theyre creatives, theyre also part of a marketing machine and will create and react to predicted market forces. This is a factor separate of identity. Lets say you are a restaurant owner in some small midwest town. You are hyper competent in french cuisine and love to make it. However, the people in your town arent very open to french cuisine - its to different from the things they themselves like. They like good ol fashioned BBQ. So you have two choices: Try to push the french cuisine and hope the market is open enough to it, or put out food that you know your customers will come in for. The true mid ground would be to slowly insert french delicacies and what not that slowly shifts the palette of your customers to be more open to something else. You obviously wont reach everyone, and some people would be put off, but you can nudge the market in tiny increments.

And thats the point - if society at large has an issue with homosexuality, and youre a game company, how likely is it that you would introduce more neutral or pro LBGT characters into your media without suffering push back when your concern is profit? But the article snippet makes the inverse argument - the identity of a group of people pushed this forward with no consideration to the market, which was a neutral indifferent aspect.

Identity is important...I'm not saying it's 100 % unattainable, just hard to mass market towards and audience in which you have no perspective in.

The problem is the assumptions it must make for it to work: That collective identity informs decision making processes, and the ability to understand and empathize, particularly if you have personal experiences in it is not present. It is not a functional point to suggest that a straight man cannot understand what a gay man feels or goes through. You could maybe argue a straight man may not understand what it is to be specifically attracted to another man, possibly, but it is very obvious a straight man understands the concept of attraction. The differences isnt attraction, its just in the details of the attraction.

As a point, of those devs that gamasutra points to, how many of them may have gay friends or family members whom they love dearly? How many of them are activists promoting equal rights? How many of them maybe even experimented with their sexuality? The article cant know, but decides to push that their broad over arching identity - not individual life experiences and thoughts - drive the decision making processes. To collectivize them all under the same umbrella of 'x' group has 'y' characteristic, and therefore does things in 'z' fashion.

So when I see articles make assertions by turning identity groups into monoliths and giving that as an explanation, while ignoring nuance among other factors, it comes across as sophistry. Sounds legit, sounds reasonable on paper....if you accept the initial premise they put forth.

It's for this reason that we see more creativity and boundary pushing in steam indie developers than would dare present in mainstream.....We'd be redeveloping FFXIV into Sims 5 Deluxe.

Well itd be nice if there was something for everyone, but I do understand the practical nature of things to in regards to marketing. Maybe Im not being clear enough or not thinking it through well enough, but my thoughts simply was that yeah theres gonna probably more fan service geared somewhat at what is the perceived 'largest' group of the fanbase (not necessarily a majority). However, I think if there is a large enough section of the community wants a certain kind of fan service, even if theyre not the majority, they should be accommodating for it. Which is why Im saying lets just do fanservice for everyone as much as possible within reason. Fanservice for guys and gals of varying stripes as much as possible. Everyone wins. But lets also be blunt about it and just accept we all want to be seeing things that makes our hearts a flutter and not have a double standard. Thus far, if the issue is we dont have many sexy guys, then lets incorporate more to help level the field.

The article says the identity of game developers ...how the decision process is affected.

The problem is that this rejects the agency of the individual. It is very convenient an argument to use things like 'subconscious', because it allows you to collectivize rather than address nuance. Are we going to suggest that LGBT are unable to write straight characters because of their identity and collective subconsciousness? Or Female writers write male characters, or vice versa. How about when it comes to race. I feel that the identity argument, again, uses collectivization to make broad generalized sweeping judgement about group. It presupposes that the thinking and actions of an individual person is predicated on group identity, whether consciously or subconsciously.

I understand where you're going, but the scope of this article and my argument is not as abstract as your reply is. Its singular purpose is to reason why male sexualisation is not as prevalent as female sexualisation i relation to the majority target audience. It's unfortunate but I really have no opinion on this part.

And it comes to it's conclusion based on identity rather than the nuance of the individual, particularly when trying to understand a trend. The through process is this: A trend is noticed, trend is based on decisions being made, whos making the decisions - the creatives, notices creatives share similar identity, assumes then that identity must be informing the creative process, which explains trend.

The best way to explain why this process is faulty is as so (Please keep in mind I do not endorse this outlook: ) 'X' Societies are relatively successful, Theyre successful based on decisions they make, we look at the people who make up 'X' society, they all are of the same racial identity 'y', identity must be informing decision process, therefore these societies are successful because of 'y' people.


This is the basis of many supremacist talking points, and you can clearly see why its faulty. The explanation for an identified trend is being derived from the identity of that people associated with the trend, rather than other aspects. It removes nuance. You can flip this into a negative pretty easily as well, where x society is unsuccessful and comprised of 'y' people, and the underlying philosophy of tying identity to action and outcome operates similarly. To me, this is not a legitimate point.

The logic doesn't quite add up here..... In the US, it's probably Captain America's butt.

I bring up 80s/90s because Im trying (and probably failing but the sounds of it) to show you a then vs now trend. And that trend has been drifting more and more towards a wider variety of representation and acceptance. Let me put it this way - By 1940s standards, the 1980s shirtless action man glistening in sweat would never fly. It would be considered way to homo erotic by 1940s standards. Much like the more form fitting outfits of lady leads that show more female figure is way to sexual by, lets say, 1750s standards. The 80s, when comparing it to previous eras, is far more progressive but in compared to our current environment, seems brutish and primitive. We have been, broadly moving more liberally as time goes on for all groups. Something that gets glossed over often when discussing where we are now vs where we were.

Why it relates here is that I am making saying that that the concepts that Gamasutra, if we accept their premise makes more contextual sense 30 years ago than it does now. It comes across like they still feel that between 30-40 years ago and now, almost nothing at all has changed.

No offence taken....Not just me.

Unfortunately, I just disagree with this outlook. I dont think Identity is an important part of who a person is. Identity, as I define it, is merely the descriptive characteristics of a person at best. Being black, white, hispanic, asian, etc does not inform me of anything other than what you may look like. Generally, It would be, in my personal opinion, wrong to assume anything about an individual person simply based on the identity of race as an example. Same with Sex, Sexuality, Gender expression, etc. outside of direct explicit factors. (I.E: If somone tells me theyre a lesbian, I can make the assumption they broadly find women attractive because the identity specifies a very direct action and concept). People come from many walks of life, and I think that a pernicious idea that is constantly floated unfortunately is to conflate our identity with our individualistic thinking and experiences and project outwards. I.E: "As an 'x' person, I had this life experiences, so anyone with 'x' trait inevitably has the same experiences because we share 'x' trait." Taken it the extremes (which happens a lot lately IMO), it creates us vs them dichotomies where "You cannot understand anything about me cause youre 'y' and Im 'x'"

The reality is more that life experiences define a lot more about us than the make up of our skin and body features. Of course we are not blank slates, as there are still under some evolutionary factors at play that do influence our actions to some extent in a broad sense. But we are not genetically predetermined to act in very nuanced hyper specific ways. From my perspective, the Gamasutra article is actually suggesting this - The identity of the creatives relates to a specific world view, action, and outcome that ends up reinforcing the identity aspect. It is to simplistic and brushes over way to many factors, especially when the goal is trying to understand a trend. If anything, its implicitly assigning motive to a person based on identity grouping.

I know people do put their identity into their viewpoints, but it makes me wonder if that happens cause we've been trained too or because it actually matters. I tend to suspect the former, particularly as of late, where the cultural zeitgeist in the US currently for the last 5-10 years has become more and more hyper focused on identity as a means of defining who we are.

That being said, I rather generalize myself to....It's the context it becomes used in and the purpose it serves.

It would be silly of course to not realize that some factors influence certain actions. A heterosexual man is going to be inclined to find women generally desirable. So when theyre looking for a partner, its gonna probably be more geared towards women. There's biology at play there. A direct one to one action that is immediately related. However, its one thing to say we may have preferences, and another to suggest that having a sexual preference influences a creative or somewhat unrelated action. To create female characters while down playing male sexuality (subconsciously or otherwise) specifically cause theyre mostly all heterosexual is applying an identity to a very specific and semi unrelated action. In this case - Identity to creative process. A specific action derived from a broad generalization of a group along one factor.

That being stated, it wouldnt surprise me if cultural norms and traditions affect your outlook. But I do think its important to make a distinction between racial and cultural. It's a point a lot of people dont think about to much but Culture =/= race. It is one thing to say you are French (culture) and racially french. A person of Chinese racial background who is born in France is French culturally, not 'French' by race. This is because the culture of something is about ideas, philosophies, and concepts. About what people believe and act out. Where French as an ethnic group is just a relation of the ancestry and characteristics of a person. This gets conflated because people tend to confuse the fact an idea exists or comes from a specific part of the world, that it must have only come into existence because of the 'race' of the people inhabiting that area.

I make this distinction because a lot of people fail to realize theres a difference. I think it makes perfect sense that cultural cues affect your outlook because those are ideas and concepts, but I wouldn't suggest your racial make up itself does because these are two separate things, if that makes sense.

Im glad we tend to agree (I think unless Im misreading you) that lets just have more fan service for everyone and call it a day. Im definitely of the concept of more is better, not less.

Beyond all this, I think I need to stop writing books here. haha...

[LalafellDown]

I know what will satisfy everyone

https://www.reddit.com/r/chloe/comme...tm_medium=mweb

[VirusOnline]

If I could make this shorter I could. I crai inside.

Oh I dont mean you yourself are using sophistry . . .

Gamasutra has a reasonable conclusion with valid premises. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean its sophistry.
For example would it be faulty that SE decides XIV should have more casual content update than savage content updates as a result of identifying a large presence of casual players ? Casual player here being an identifier. We can break down into however much nuance we want, main fact is that SE sees that their market is majority casual and will naturally gravitate towards casual play. In mainstream games, individual nuance can be considered, but if that nuance is not generally harmful, targeting a generalization is acceptable to bring in or retain market. Look to casual vs. savage players as an example. It would be remiss not to consider the gaming identities present in the XIV community and how your content draws them in or puts them off.

I agree with this broadly . . .

I'm curious as to why you keep saying with no consideration to the market ? The consideration here is the netural, socially acceptable interests in relation to the straight male in mainstream games. For example, female sexualisation is generally acceptable.

The problem is the assumptions it must make for it to work . . .

I didn't suggest people can't have basic human empathy, sympathy, or emotions.

Let me present a situation : you're wanting to paint an attractively sexualised male marketed for female and gay audiences, but your design team is comprised of straight men. Will I seek out people randomly or will my research be focused around certain identities that are attracted to men ? This is where your details of attraction come in and how identities afford for different insights. There are two sides to this coin. Just having a gay friend won't tell you what he finds sexually appealing in another man. Just being an activist doesn't mean I can suddenly speak with nuance for any identity I am an activist for. Me having and artist friend doesn't mean I suddenly understand the nuance of blending technique and colour theory. This also doesn't mean one doesn't completely have the ability to be able to sympathize.

The point I'm making is that sexual identity is an insightful perspective when selling to a majority that also shares your same sexual identity and can identify and share what convention beauty would sell best.

Well itd be nice if there was something for everyone . . .

I resonate with you here and this is where I think Gamasutra holds a good point. Female sexualisation dominates and often is at the forefront because of the majority, largest, target. This can also considered 'safe' or the neutral in a global market. For example, female viera. A WoW study in 2014 estimated that 23 % of male players and 93 % of female players played female avatars. In 2017, YoshiP said that the ratio of male to female players was 7 : 3 or 57 % to 43 %. Female viera, a fan favourite and convetionally attractive model, therefore appealed to 58 % of the overall FFXIV population based on gender avatar preference alone. We could go into probability and statistics to address nuance, but the idea is to understand the generalizations of a market.

Bunny boy weird amirite, tho ? ugly cry

The problem is that this rejects the agency of the individual . . .

Individuals do have agency in the brainstorming process. But again, agency like creativity stops at the sole deciding committee. This could be YoshiP, this could be who he reports to, this could be investors, etc. Let's look at the process of Au Ra and how that image changed and what we were actually given. This is how creative process in a company goes like. Creatives, however beautiful the Au Ra originally were, were denied for what we have now.

Again, we can't cater to every one of them, thus generalization. I really feel you're going too deep between the lines rather than taking the argument for what it is. A generalized reasoning. You're diminishing what identity is here to a very shallow point of view rather than seeing how it pertains to much more than just a list of physical attributes.

And it comes to it's conclusion based on identity rather than the nuance of the individual, particularly when trying to understand a trend . . .

Not sure how we got to this point, lol ! Your favour nuance, this much is clear. What you presented is circular reasoning where both your premises having become your conclusion, and a premise can not be a conclusion. It's like saying my dog is the best because he thinks it therefore he is the best by his own thought. Gamasutra identifies a premise of a large presence of straight male in both developer and target market. The conclusion is lower rates of male sexualisation as socially acceptable straight male interests favour female sexualisation.

I bring up 80s/90s because Im trying (and probably failing but the sounds of it) to show you a then vs now trend . . .

We're both making the same point here. Only mine with the added reasoning that just because we're moving doesn't mean mainstream is still not considering the safe market to be whatever mode of socially acceptable straight male is. There has been change, but it would be remiss to say female and male sexualisation are even on the same level as each other and Gamasutra offers reason as to why.

Unfortunately, I just disagree with this outlook . . .

For someone who claims identity shouldn't be or isn't a factor, you surely use it quite a lot in your arguments. Perhaps your definition of identity is too shallow.

Identity is not just physical features. It's also comprised of our morals, ethics, values, relationships, personal experiences, lifestyles, ideas surrounding gender, culture, etc. It's a common phrasing in English to say "I identify with these morals, with these ethics, with these values" and so forth and so on. And one's identity is always changing in these regards. You accept that outlook can be affected by cultural identity but not by a sexual identity ?

You also say you don't want to make assumptions based on identity but do just that in the same line. We're human. We make assumptions and inferences without hesititation whether explicit or not. If someone says they're an RPG gamer, you might talk to them about FFXIV or WoW or Pillars of Eternity. Or you might see a friend on a computer playing an FPS and infer they like FPS games in general. It's how we contextualize, it's not some terrible thing to avoid. Focus groups and research teams alike target specific identities based on people's relationships such as teachers, doctors, parents, sexuality, etc in order to produce better results with insights from these different identities.

It would be silly of course to not realize that some factors influence certain actions . . .

Yes, there are a multitude of factors, the article nor I said any one factor is the sole purpose. You seem so hasty to rule out identity in the process of it all as if identity is but all bad in the creative process. Having a sexual preference can have an influence on a creative work and it's not a bad thing. It's one thing to say it's not a factor in an instance, it's another to completely rule it out. Drawing towards your sexual preference is a common theme in art just as is drawing towards your own gender. The prevailing difference between you and I is that you seem so intensely attached to nuance whereas I feel nuance and generalizations have their appropriate places.

I make this distinction because a lot of people fail to realize theres a difference . . .

Yes, there is a difference between ethnicity, nationality, and culture. I don't think anyone has or is currently contesting this.

We disagree on the details but agree on the overall message and that's fine enough.

[Cyreil]

Let's all compromise and ask to fight nothing but morbols and marmots from now on.

[Melichoir]

Gamasutra has a reasonable conclusion with valid premises. ....content draws them in or puts them off.

Gamasutra is relying on a lot of assumptions that are on the basis of identity and predetermined output. The main crux of their position is the identity of the creatives and users is informing their decision making in a specific fashion. The problem with this argument is that it removes agency and nuance and treats the group as a monolith where there are no other factors at play. It dresses this point up by saying "Well, you have a lot of sexy ladies, and a lot of players and devs are straight men, therefore being straight is resulting in creating sexy women." But that point, no matter how you look at it, is suggesting identity is directly pushing input and output. It glosses over nuance in both creatives and in the market.

The example you provide does the opposite of what Gamasutra does: You consider the market forces that are based on individuality (a bunch of individuals making a personal decision) and have SE react to said forces with individual design choices. The key nuance here is the drastic difference in what people do on the basis of personal non identity factors (I.E what content they choose to play, regardless of identity) vs identity based decision making (I.E what they like to view based on personal identity.) And even when considering identity, you have individual identity vs collective identity. Just because a man may be straight doesnt mean they feel uncomfortable around male sexualization or homosexuality. To collectively say that this is how things are gonna be for hte whole group is, again, erasing nuance and agency.

There are to many assumptions that rely on collectivizing by group identity and attempts to dress it up as being valid and cogent, which is why it's sophistry. It sounds kosher on paper, if you accept the premise that the actions being taken are due to identity, and not personal choices and acting and reacting to those individualistic choices, or cultural norms, or other nuanced factors that are motivated by choice making rather than intrinsic identity decisions.

I'm curious as to why you keep saying with no consideration to the market ? The consideration here is the netural, socially acceptable interests in relation to the straight male in mainstream games. For example, female sexualisation is generally acceptable.

Because the issue is that what Gamasutra suggests makes more sense in a market that has a more adverse outlook on male sexualization. Again, it relies on the assumption that the market finds certain things acceptable and not acceptable based on identity.

This, btw, also makes another assumption - That males arent sexualized in media. I feel that this argument tends to crop up because people think that female sexualization is the same as male sexualization. That what a sexy male looks like is the same as a sexy female, and what some of that even looks like varies by culture.

I didn't suggest people can't have basic human empathy, sympathy, or emotions.

Im not suggesting you are. Im suggesting Gamasutra is.

Let me present a situation : you're wanting to paint an attractively sexualised male marketed for female and gay audiences,.... share what convention beauty would sell best.

Ive done commission artwork that is NSFW for virtually all spectrums of sexuality. What straight females like and what gay males like do not line up over half the time. And I was able to provide them with what they wanted by simply asking and observing - something a ton of creatives do. This doesnt even include family members and friends who are LGBT and talk about what they like. Ive sat down and had burgers and beers and chatted about what is hot and what is not from a variety of perspectives.

While I may have one insight on the sexuality spectrum, it does not preclude me from being able to have insight, understand, or create for another part of the spectrum. And that was my point above. The snippet relies to heavily on an identity and assumptions about said identity to reach its conclusions. It doesnt take into account a lot of factors, like cultural changes, or the individualism of the creatives or consumers and their personal feelings or even if such things matter.

I resonate with you here...Bunny boy weird amirite, tho ? ugly cry

Im not sure I get your point because it feels like its running counter to what was being suggested? Most of the market is male, and Female Viera exists and is sexy, so therefore female viera was put out there to appeal to the larger male player base?

This doesnt take into account a lot of other factors. How many of the 57% is straight. How much of the straight market even likes the female viera beauty standards. How about gay male player who like playing as female viera for their own personal choices. What about Lesbian Gamers who do like how female viera look. Or even straight females who want play as female viera cause theyre attractive. Then you have to start looking at the other side of this: Hrothgars. How many straight men play them. How about straight women. How about lesbian women, or gay men. What about those who dont care either way and play these races for other factors like lore, or cause they like tall characters, or they dig the amazonian vibe, or simply because it's something thats not a potato tot or catboi or whatever.

It's to broad a suggestion (with a lot of questionable implications about the nature of people) that identity is the deciding factor in how things are. If this was the case, we should see little to no changes in the creatives or market place when it comes to this stuff, but things have changed because its not about identity, its about ideas. It always has been. Straight men didnt push back against homosexuality cause that is inherent to straight men, they did it cause of bigoted ideas that were much more prevalent within the culture and what it meant to be a man. You want to know how this point is true: Go back and really look at the 70s and 80s and early 90s. Yes homophobia was a thing expressed a lot by men, but there were plenty of women who found homosexuality in men was undesirable as well (and yes there were plenty of straight men who viewed lesbians as bad too). This is because it was cultural, and culture is not built on identity, its built on ideas.

Individuals do have agency in the brainstorming process. But again, agency like creativity stops at the sole deciding committee.....how it pertains to much more than just a list of physical attributes.

Im being hard on the identity argument because people tend to conflate ideas with identity. That is they suggest that an identity group acts, thinks, and behaves in a certain way based on identity, when it is more likely other influences are at play, like culture or personal experiences. If we go with the former, then there is a ton of baggage that comes with it. One of them is the most immediate - how can you fault the group for behaving a certain way if its their identity influencing their decision making in such a drastic way. It is inherent to them. It is also acceptable to make judgements about people simply by identity. Which ironically is what Gamasutra does: Straight men have a problem with male sexuality or appearing gay. That is a sweeping generalization that is in reality heavily contextual on culture and what is defined as appearing gay or male sexuality, but for some reason it is implied it is a factor of identity.

Not sure how we got to this point, lol ! ... interests favour female sexualisation.

The premise gamasutra puts out is circular: Most Devs and Gamers are straight males. They make and consume content for straight males. They do this cause Most Devs and Gamers are Straight Males.

It is dressed up with some reasoning about the identity group and why they do what they do (problem with appearing gay and male sexuality), but it still is a conclusion that feeds back into the premise. The most charitable reading of what gamasutra says is they conflate correlation with causation. The cause of so much straight male fan service is cause straight males in both market and development, rather than that being a correlation.

It divorces any nuance from it, like some of what is suggested above.

We're both making the same point here. Only mine with the added reasoning that just because we're moving doesn't mean mainstream is still not considering the safe market to be whatever mode of socially acceptable straight male is. There has been change, but it would be remiss to say female and male sexualisation are even on the same level as each other and Gamasutra offers reason as to why.

I think the issue I take a problem with, especially as of late, is the portrayal that we havent moved nearly as much as we have. That were still all butt backwards. I keep tabs on the media industries at large and the content being made and can tell you this isnt the case. We've been accelerating (and in some places over compensating). Now if your point is "is it up to 'parity'" Id say no, which is why Im ok if they want to do nothing but guy candy the next xpac. It wont make a difference to me personally.

For someone who claims identity shouldn't be or isn't a factor, you surely use it quite a lot in your arguments. Perhaps your definition of identity is too shallow.

Identity is not just physical features. It's also comprised of our morals, ethics, values, relationships, personal experiences, lifestyles, ideas surrounding gender, culture, etc. I...

Best thing I can say is that youre suggesting identity in terms of the entire person, where I am suggesting identity in terms of physical characteristics only as is being commonly discussed in current political climates. This might be semantics issue then and agreeing to defined terms. Identity, the characteristics of ones physical nature and the way they were born, is not the same as the character, ideals, culture, and concepts they act out. Id probably call the latter character. I make this distinction because, again, to often people conflate morals, ethics, etc with a particular race, sex, gender, sexuality, etc. EX: If you are 'white' you believe and think this way as a white person. We should all understand well enough that this is a silly point to make because it is not consistent. Not all white people think and behave a certain way.

In some cases, Identity can inform some of our decision making process - but only in incredibly basic situations. If you tell me you are a gay man, then I am going to make the broad inference that you are sexually attracted to men. But that identity factor doesnt tell me anything else. It doesnt tell me how you live your life. Or what you like to do in your spare time. Or your political leanings, or your outlook on social concepts. It doesnt tell me about your personality, it doesnt tell me about your religious or spiritual beliefs. It doesnt tell me about your past, or future prospects. It informs of of nothing concrete except your basic sexual preference. To suggest otherwise requires I make assumptions about you by tying ideas or concepts to your sexuality that you may, as an individual, not adhere to.

You also say you don't want to make assumptions based on identity but do just that in the same line.... results with insights from these different identities.

If I wasnt clear, then I think thats a bit on me. Assumptions are a part of human nature, but there's a difference between making an assumption based on the choices you make, and making one based on the way you were born. Making an inference that a friend likes FPS if they own like 50 different FPS games, is one that is fine because buying and playing said FPS games is a personal choice they decide to do. Saying they like FPS games cause theyre a certain race, gender, sexuality, etc, doesnt make sense and isnt fine, particularly when were discussing the individual.

Yes, there are a multitude of factors, ...nuance and generalizations have their appropriate places.

I am quick to rule out collectivization along identity lines, not individual characteristics that a lot of people may share by happen chance. This may seem like semantics but there's an underlying thought here that the value of anything should be measured in an individual sense. I also am not naive to Gamasutra among other op ed pieces by places like Kotaku, Polygon, and other gaming journalist websites who have shifted from discussing games to discussing current identity politics. And it is not done typically as being equally valid, but seen as a problem.

We disagree on the details but agree on the overall message and that's fine enough.

Frankly thats how a lot of this always goes. Most people are on the same page, just the details differ, which as you say fine enough. :>

Ok I need to lay off the essays hahaa....

[Kolsykol]

Must be why this company has been making shirtless pretty boys the norm for all that time. 'Sure, it appeals to others, but I have a bone to pick with straight men' as if a form of entertainment trying to entertain its main audience while also showing a long history of providing entertainment for smaller parts of the audience too is a bad thing.

'Like its been done for decades'- Tidus, shirtless handsome man with a nice face. Vaan, shirtless handsome man with a nice face. Kuja clearly isn't aimed at straight males. Locke, Zidane, Auron- highly charismatic and charming. FFXV's entire cast- overly handsome men that accompany you the entire game and get into a lot of scenarios and situations that are clearly not aimed at 'straight males'. Their willingness to make their main FF title game a bishounen, something that's aimed solely at appealing to people that are into men, kinda shows they're perfectly fine with giving things to everyone.

Also- let's talk customization. As a straight female, my biggest issue with the customizer isn't male customization, it's a lack of more sliders for my own character (butt, thighs, waist, arms, etc..), who's an extension of myself in game. If certain things are lacking specifically with male customization, sure that does limit my eye candy but it's going to effect me less than a limit to my character's customization. I think if anyone's going to be most annoyed at not having certain male customization it's going to be players who play male characters, which is predominantly straight males. Limiting the options of straight males using the game as an extension of themselves is catering to straight males... how?

It really feels like 'straight males' is being used as an argument in itself, that people think if they can bring that up it's an auto win and thus the offending party has to change their ways.

I think that people are kinda reading things into it when they say that a game is '' marketed towards straight males '' or whatever, I can't begin to count how many times I've seen people say that about a female character and then you look up the creator and it's a woman and it's consistent with the rest of her art.

I think that people just have an idea in their heads about what is '' for men '' and when they see that they assume that it was directed at men.
I really don't even think that most developers think that way, I think that they just worry more about creating something that they enjoy I don't think that most of them ever sit down and go '' who is our game for, men okay ''. That's more something that certain observers do.


I find the notion that FF does it to be especially absurd too, the FF series on a whole oozes femininity and is very atypical.
Like even with cases as Bayonetta people make that argument and say that the game was still '' for men '' but as far as I understand tho the game director went to very great lengths to make sure that the game had a feminine influence in every single aspect. He deliberately hired women and essentially gave them free reign ( within reason ofc ) precisely because he wanted that to be felt.
But people just see an attractive woman being sexual and they go '' this must've been intended for men '', they basically project their views unto other people.

Even in FFXIV I honestly see more men complain about characters like Gaia and being rude about her talking about how she has had botox injections ( it's just lipstick lol ) etc, while I see more women appreciate her in a fashion sense.
Just in general I honestly see way more men upset about this kind of content while women and the LGBT community is more accepting of it.
But it is ofc subjective and the truth is that your tastes aren't dependent on your gender or sexuality.
Even when it comes to gay and bi men and women some of them are more attracted to femininity while others are more attracted to masculinity ( often times they complement each other too ).
It's the same with straight men and women, there is no single preference.
I see a ton of straight men praise certain female characters and saying that they're sexy because they're more masculine.
A female character being more masculine or not conventionally attractive doesn't make them not sexualized or not sexual.


I think that the drama that went around in the games industry years ago because of certain individuals about sexualized content can sorta be felt today still in how it's talked about and the lens in which people perceive it.
People still talk about it in the most simplistic way ever and make these sweeping generalizations about what men and women like or don't like.

I think that a lot of people find it a bit embarrassing to talk about in general too or they know how negatively people will react to it so they just stay silent.
I try to stay away from it because I know how immature people are about it and it gives me a headache...
I mean on most forums you can make these extreme allegations against people who like sexualized content, and if you simply state that you enjoy it you'll get dogpiled by people trying their hardest to humiliate you for it. Especially if you're a man, then people will try and attack your masculinity.
Same if you're a guy who likes more feminine content. So it often becomes a circlejerk because people are afraid to discuss and admit to enjoying certain things.
Even with women other women will shame you for enjoying it and label you an enemy.

And yeah... I dunno why people always gotta talk about this in such a negative way about the female characters but then act like they want more male fanservice.
Like one second they call women sluts etc and talk about them in a really negative way, but then the next second they're all like '' oh yeah and more sexy men please ''.
Wtf?
If it's supposedly so bad with female characters, then why would it be a good thing with male characters? Especially when they spend 99% of their time complaining about the female characters and just bring it up to deflect criticism for what they're doing.

Edit: I think that a lot of men also tend to shit on this kind of content to try and prove that they're an '' ally '' or make themselves look good.
I know of a woman who worked at a very prominent movie studio and she quit due to repeated sexual harassment from her boss and another man at the office.
One of the least bad things her boss would do is walk up to her at the office and start ranting about how disgusting he thought that her figurines were and then go on and talk about his own '' realistic '' sexual preferences. There's A LOT of men like that in gaming media too, I see so much of it.
It's like they're trying to prove to women how great they are or something.

[Veis_Alveare]

More thots of both genders is clearly the only solution.

Everyone, do your part. Get your thot glam on.

(Unless Lala of course)