Amazon.com Widgets

Why do people complaint about objectification of any gender in videogames? Seriously?

Asked by: Diablus-X
  • You cannot objectify a fictional character (male or female) in the same qualitative meaning suggested by the therm

    Objectification is a tricky issue. Objectification is the process of turning a person into an item, sometimes for sexual reasons. Although this is kind of awkward, because characters in videogames are not people, and thus cannot be objectified in the same qualitative notion that is suggested by the term. Under the definition of objectification, all main characters are objectified as being acted upon by the player with a controller.
    Another issue comes from sexual objectification in specific. So long as one does not believe there is anything wrong with the portrayal of the human body (which is why these games are rated M, so kids do not play) why would anyone have an issue with scantily clad characters? Since we are talking about videogames in particular, these characters exist in a fantasy realm that is not meant to simulate reality, and is actually meant as an escape from reality. So in a fantasy realm of people with superpowers, heightened abilities, or huge technological advancements, one would not expect such characters to conform to the notion of reality, especially when it comes to their portrayal as human beings. And to top it all off, objectification is not necessarily an issue of gender. How one may say that these artists did not do this explicitly as objectification, but even so, it is the same result, despite the reasoning behind it. Which means that although many female characters are “objectified” under the loose definition placed with the word, many male characters are too under the same definition.
    But does it matter? In my opinion, no. Because just as games are not known to cause violence, there is no evidence that videogames cause sexism, or issues in self esteem. Videogame characters live in a fantasy world that does not, and should not, simulate our own reality. Besides, there is nothing wrong with the human body, and if the game creator wants to make a game with stark naked characters, that’s their call as game creators, and if not, than so be it. It’s not up to us as consumers of the media to force game creators to conform to our liking, it is our duty as individuals to decide whether or not we like a game, and rate it like that, or refuse to purchase it altogether.
    The human body is not a bad thing, so let’s not treat it as such, even if it has enhanced features. Remember, this medium is supposed to allow us to escape reality and live in a fantasy world, not the other way around.

  • Indeed, many see this as objectification, and maybe it is. But as we come to the issue of sexual liberty and orientation again...

    Objectification in any form of media may simply be for the pleasure and enjoyment of the player. People may say that sexual need is something to be suppressed, so we need to backtrack. Sexual need is exactly what it is: need. Sex is a basic requirement of life, something organisms who reproduce using sexual reproduction (opposed to asexual) need to survive. Humans as a general species are still subject to the same rules we've been given. We MUST reproduce to survive, and to make sure we do, we have something called the reward circuit. Our brain sends out endorphins to reward us. This is the same structure that is responsible for happiness, sexual pleasure, and some drug use. It is a good feeling and one that we cannot live without. And so, surprise surprise, a baby is born! I digress. People need sex to survive, and sexual objectification is not a dirty way to get it. In fact, it is a rather safe way to feel sex without being criminalized by the public. If we can get past this moment in time where many ideas about sex are still in debate, life will be a lot more pleasurable indeed.

  • No responses have been submitted.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.
>