The actual problem with chain-mail bikinis.

[Kardwill]

Are you able to elaberate on why you think shes not dressed or posed equivalently to conan?

Well, not easy to put a precise analysis on what exactly is wrong with the image, but I'll try

- The pose thrusts out both her breasts and her bare buttocks, with the upward camera shot and the wide open stance adding emphasis to them

- The "long glove - long boots" combo draws attention to the fact that the torso area between them is pretty much naked

- The open chain links holding the chainloincloth and the chainbra are putting emphasis to the fact that she's got nothing under them, just as lace lingerie would do (how does this loincloth hold, anyway?)

- Bonus point for the garter-like sheath that allows her to keep her dagger pressed against her bare thight when she's runningn

I've seen worse (she looks kinda fierce, the boots and gloves could have been longer, no high-heels...), but I can't remember seeing a Conan cover that purposefully draw attention to his bare buttocks. But I'm no specialist ^^

Sure, Conan is often represented with a fair amount of bare skin, but his loincloth looks like it's been ripped from the nearest bear, not bought from a kinky lingerie store. A cover of a Conan-like, loincloth-clad, barechested Sonja holding a broadsword would have more skin and naughty bits showing, and yet I think it would feel less sexualized than this one.

[The Jack]

I know that Red Sonja got mentioned quite early in this thread (originally it was about RPGs) but it is a Character from the early 70ies, the film is from 1985. She is not typical or representative for modern fantasy depiction of women. She sure fits in her time though.

But if we take something both influential and modern, like e.g. GoT we find that while still totally full of sex and nudity, clothing and armor tends to be sensible

Even if we go into the horrible, insulting mess that is female characters in modern isekai (and oh has this genre issues), bikini armor is not exactly the norm (but might happen).

I so want to rant about how the majority of armour in GoT is hardly sensible if you know what armour's supposed to be.
Isekai is mostly written by lazy hack writers, but the as the genre is mostly 'i enter a dumb fantasy game' they've really got a licence to create bikini warriors.

I'll reiterate a point that I think has gone ignored and perhaps misinterpreted thus far in this thread-- that fictional characters are incapable of making decisions for themselves.
.

Of course we're going to ignore it. It's completely and utterly irrelevant and stands up to no scrutiny.
-If you run under the premise that the character is incapable of making decisions for themselves then they also cannot be victims or strong characters.
-If you have any talent at writing, the characters you write will be real to you and you'll want them to make the decisions you'd think they'd make. A good author will be influenced by his own characters. If we say 'but what about bad writers?' well, in which case all the characters are going to be bad, not just the sexual characters, and most people will drop what they're reading regardless of their gender politics.


I

[Kardwill]

I so want to rant about how the majority of armour in GoT is hardly sensible
-If you have any talent at writing, the characters you write will be real to you and you'll want them to make the decisions you'd think they'd make. A good author will be influenced by his own characters. If we say 'but what about bad writers?' well, in which case all the characters are going to be bad, not just the sexual characters, and most people will drop what they're reading regardless of their gender politics.

You can have decent story and characters, and then embarassing "Surprise, pantyshot!" moments come out of nowhere in characters and situations that did nothing to warrant it. Manga and JRPGs are really prone to this type of stuff, and it can be so gratuitous that it kills immersion in the story and interest in the character. At least, it pushed me away from stories I liked, just because it's really hard to take seriously a war story where you have random upskirts panty-shots in the middle of combat or during a wartime speech (Yeah, "Gates", I'm looking at you)

A band of scantily clad, big breasted girls throwing themselves at the hero in your typical "Anime harem" storyline? M'kay, I bought this comic/game specifically for this kind of things, so it's not a surprise.
A full frontal of a savage amazon wearing only a teeth collar and the blood of her enemies, in a badass "I will kill you and eat your heart" pose? No problem!
A flirty character sporting kinky "not-armor" and seductive poses? Well, the character may or may not really interest me (depends of how it was played/written), but at least it's consistent.
The silent, thousand-yard-stare eyed, businesslike 15 years old mercenary in my RPG party wearing a daisy-duke-short-and-boobstrap ensemble, or the entirety of my army's female cavalry wearing a bare-buttocks-and-mail-stockings armor in a "serious" fantasy wargame? Frankly, it's embarrassing. Why do I play those games?

So yeah, gratuitous fanservice can detract from a story and from a character. It only adds to it if it's in a context that allows this kind of silly stuff, and not all stories are good for it.

[The Jack]

Yeah but you've yet to describe a context in which it's inappropriate. Somehow I doubt your 'serious' fantasy wargame is as serious as you say it is. Do you have a source?

[Satinavian]

Yeah but you've yet to describe a context in which it's inappropriate. Somehow I doubt your 'serious' fantasy wargame is as serious as you say it is. Do you have a source?

I would guess it is Fire Emblem. Never played itmyself though.

[Satinavian]

doublepost

[The Jack]

I would guess it is Fire Emblem. Never played itmyself though.

*does a quick google source*


Dude, give him some credit.

[Max_Killjoy]

Well, not easy to put a precise analysis on what exactly is wrong with the image, but I'll try

- The pose thrusts out both her breasts and her bare buttocks, with the upward camera shot and the wide open stance adding emphasis to them

- The "long glove - long boots" combo draws attention to the fact that the torso area between them is pretty much naked

- The open chain links holding the chainloincloth and the chainbra are putting emphasis to the fact that she's got nothing under them, just as lace lingerie would do (how does this loincloth hold, anyway?)

- Bonus point for the garter-like sheath that allows her to keep her dagger pressed against her bare thight when she's runningn

I've seen worse (she looks kinda fierce, the boots and gloves could have been longer, no high-heels...), but I can't remember seeing a Conan cover that purposefully draw attention to his bare buttocks. But I'm no specialist ^^

Sure, Conan is often represented with a fair amount of bare skin, but his loincloth looks like it's been ripped from the nearest bear, not bought from a kinky lingerie store. A cover of a Conan-like, loincloth-clad, barechested Sonja holding a broadsword would have more skin and naughty bits showing, and yet I think it would feel less sexualized than this one.

Exactly. A character could be completely naked, and not objectified -- or showing almost no skin and yet completely reduced to a depersonalized object.

"But this dude is in a loincloth too!" is a red herring.

[Friv]

And if you look at it and say, "I don't have that intent, and I don't want to bother trying to cater to every critic who claims that they see something 'problematic' in my work, and I don't think it's a garbage fire, so I'm leaving it as-is," that is a perfectly valid choice, as well.

You can absolutely do that. Just don't be surprised when it makes the complaining people leave. Most people don't particularly like to be called liars, and if you tell someone that something that hurts them personally doesn't actually hurt them, that's what you're doing.

Which, again, sometimes you gotta do that. That's why you reflect on why you made that choice when someone brings up a choice. So that you can decide if the choice was valid, or if the choice was something you did without really thinking about it and thus a problem.

You can have a black lesbian be a villain in your story without being racist, sexist, or homophobic. You can have a white catholic priest be a villain without being anti-religion and racist and misogynist. And you don't have to justify any of those traits beyond making a full-fledged character who is believable as a person.

Sure. On the flip side, you can do things that are sexist or racist without being sexist or racist, just because you don't have the context for why what you're doing is wrong. The problem comes in telling people, "I don't want to have hurt someone unintentionally, so I will tell you that you weren't actually hurt by what I did."

To continue your example, if someone says, "hey, there's only one black lesbian in your book and she's the villain, and that happens every time", maybe the question becomes not "is it worth my villain being black and queer", but "why is there only one black queer character in the whole book? Why did I make the decision to make everyone else white? Is it culturally important to the book that the main cast be all white and the villain be black and queer, or did I just think "white and straight" as the default, and then added some personality traits to the villain that demanded they be black and queer"? Will it make the book stronger or weaker if I change a few characters? Can I add some connection between the villain and one or more heroes if they have a shared experience?"

There is no critique whatsoever that is not worth a moment of reflection, except for a critique that you have already reflected on. And sometimes that reflection is very short. But there's no reason not to do it except for a desire not to be wrong, and I have no patience for people who would rather hurt others than admit their mistakes.

[Segev]

And that would be synonymous with option: "I don't care enough about you, go away", or a cross between that and "I think that's worth it". It certainly is a valid choice, and not every hurt can be properly adressed without changing the character of a work, but it's still a choice to disregard someone feeling hurt by your work. The fact you didn't intend that is irrelevant. "If I tell you you hurt me, you don't get to decide that you didn't". You can decide your wishes were more important, and I may or may not agree with you on a case-by-case basis. But "I didn't mean to" is no argument whatsoever.

Oh, sure, I'm not telling you you don't experience offence or emotional pain. I'm telling you that I don't think your emotional pain or offence gives you any right to demand I change what I'm doing.

If I tell them that their preferred works offend, annoy, or make me uncomfortable, do I have as much right to demand they change them? Of course I do! I have exactly as much right: practically none.

You can absolutely do that. Just don't be surprised when it makes the complaining people leave. Most people don't particularly like to be called liars, and if you tell someone that something that hurts them personally doesn't actually hurt them, that's what you're doing.

Which, again, sometimes you gotta do that. That's why you reflect on why you made that choice when someone brings up a choice. So that you can decide if the choice was valid, or if the choice was something you did without really thinking about it and thus a problem.

Oh, absolutely. I am, in fact, inviting people who don't like something to leave if they are offering criticisms that I disagree with or don't care about and they find the work so offensive that they can't stand it without their criticisms being heeded.

On topics like this, I have generally found that no amount of catering to such criticisms will make a work "acceptable" to those making the complaints; they'll just keep demanding more, or they weren't really interested in the first place and are going to wander off when they don't have a Cause to push anymore. This isn't universal, and there are genuine fans who share the views and criticisms who stick around, but frequently the most vocal contingents are not those fans, but rather people who simply want to push an agenda. You can generally only detect this in autopsy, though: did the work cater to the criticism, and then die in popularity/success thereafter? It probably indicates the vocal critics either are a small minority who shouted down the majority (this should sound familiar to people who were around when 4e D&D was being developed, actually), or they weren't really interested in the work itself, anyway.

If, on the other hand, accepting the criticisms and making the desired alterations made the work more popular, then it was, in fact, a good move! Art is hard to judge in advance like that.

On maybe a less contentious example: I got a phobia of spilled beer. Every. Single. Time. Someone smashes a bottle of the stuff on screen I get triggered slightly. None of the creators intended to hurt me. They still did. Not enough that I'd ask them to stop, but I'd prefer my works of art without smashed bottles.

And, if you were bothered enough to ask them to stop, would they be obligated to do so lest they be cruel monsters responsible for your pain

And this also leads over to another problem: All media has tons, and tons of aspects, where I might enjoy, not care, disagree with or hate any number of. I can still enjoy most of something with smashed beer bottles, I just would have enjoyed it more without. But there is no "this exactly, but without the bottle". And there is no way to make it. So I have, in actuality, no way to actually get the media I'd prefer. Acting like there is completely free choice of media content just doesn't work. There are works where the aspects I don't like are more, or less. But without speaking up against media trends, the chances of me getting what I'd like? Exactly zero. Because I also don't have the ability or connections to get my own works produced in a way that eouldn't also dislike stuff about it - production quality, amongst other things. Art is not a solo project these days.

Well, there IS a way to make it, but you may not wish to expend the time and resources needed to do so, as they may be prohibitive for you, personally.

But you're absolutely right. The choices are out there, however, for things which cater more or less to your desires. And learning to develop a thicker skin is just part of life: you're right, there will never be the ideal work just for you if you don't make it, yourself. There will always be things you don't like. Things that upset you. Things you have to put up with and ignore if you want to enjoy works.

There certainly are for me. And I will complain about those elements. If those elements are too egregious, to the point I can't enjoy the work anymore, I'll stop consuming it. If they're not, I'll ignore them and move on. I might not even comment on them, if they work in the story and the creator clearly put them there because he wants them there. (Of course, if people bring them up, I'll voice my distaste, but I won't go out of my way to pick at it, unprovoked. There's no point.)

But... yeah. This is not about personal preference. You cannot possibly boil down cultural pressures and patterns of privilege and discrimination to "personal preference", and to argue that personal preference is fine, but people speaking out against these patterns isn't is a prioritisation that I truly disagree with. (As an aside, I don't appreciate the ad hominem of calling all ethical or moral standpoints possibly used to criticise a work poorly thought out. You can do without such digs.)

It absolutely is about personal preference. The moment you start saying "patterns of privelige!" and "discrimination!" you're making demands that others cater to your preferences, and trying to dress them up as a moral high ground.

You can call out discriminatory presentations. Go right ahead. You can call for, support, or even create better ones, and you can avoid consuming media that you find offensive.

But when you start to tell people that a work is bad because of them, you ARE judging everybody who likes it. That's also your right. Just be aware that they have as much right to judge you.

Spoiler: Mini rant on 'privilege'

Show

"Patterns of privilege" is a particularly brilliant rhetorical tool that is utterly monstrous in application. It enables you to declare any group you want as inherently oppressive just for being alive, and demand anything you want from them as if they owe it to you for breathing. It doesn't matter if the people you're talking to are suffering, don't have means, or are in exactly the same situation other than being members of the "privileged" group: they have "privilege" and thus you have more right to make demands than they do, even of them.

It serves no purpose other than to allow discrimination based on skin color, sex, or sexual preference.

I don't think artistic freedom supercedes cultural responsibility. Not in a way that it should be decreed by law, or force, but by reserving the right to think an artist can be wrong about not changing a piece of media independent of their feelings about it. "Artistic vision" is not something I value particularly much. What do I care if the artist likes what they did. It's about whether I like it, and what impact it may or may not have. If the artist likes it, nice bonus, I guess.

There is nothing you can do to enforce "cultural responsibility" without force, save vote with your feet/dollars/attention.

The very notion that artists have "cultural responsibility" is one that is quietly, sneakily, subtly calling for slavery. Slavery of thought and expression. "They owe it to me - er, I mean, 'society' - to make what I want to see, because I am disadvantaged and they're privileged. Therefore, they must make it for me, or I am justified in punishing them in any way I deign to choose."

You have no right to others' work, unless you're paying for it and they agreed to that deal. Neither does "society" nor "culture."

It is the ultimate in selfishness, greed, and tinpot tyranny to say otherwise.

Well, not easy to put a precise analysis on what exactly is wrong with the image, but I'll try

- The pose thrusts out both her breasts and her bare buttocks, with the upward camera shot and the wide open stance adding emphasis to them

- The "long glove - long boots" combo draws attention to the fact that the torso area between them is pretty much naked

- The open chain links holding the chainloincloth and the chainbra are putting emphasis to the fact that she's got nothing under them, just as lace lingerie would do (how does this loincloth hold, anyway?)

- Bonus point for the garter-like sheath that allows her to keep her dagger pressed against her bare thight when she's runningn

So, if Conan had grieves up to his knees, and armor from gauntlet to pauldron, that would make Conan sexualized?

Adding chain mail with holes you can see through would make Conan more sexualized than he is with the he-man loin cloth?

Is there a pose that Conan could be put in that equates to "thrust[ing] out [Sonja's] breasts and bare buttocks?" Or is it only women who can be posed in a way that makes their poses sexy while also being aggressive/fierce/warrior-like?

Exactly. A character could be completely naked, and not objectified -- or showing almost no skin and yet completely reduced to a depersonalized object.

"But this dude is in a loincloth too!" is a red herring.

Not...really. I mean, your first paragraph is true, but the second is not. Making this claim is equivalent to claiming that there is no correllation.

See the above attempt to explain why Sonja, in roughtly the same sort of pose as Conan, is objectified sexually while Conan is not. It boils down to presuming the conclusion, and then finding reasons to justify it. She's a woman who is wearing relatively little, so she's being objectified. He's a man wearing relatively little, but he can't be being objectified, so him wearing relatively little is a red herring.

Just as "he's also wearing little clothing" may not be sufficient on its own to make the case, "the loin cloth is a red herring" is not sufficient on its own to make the case that the guy is any less objectified than the girl to whom he's being compared.

Sure. On the flip side, you can do things that are sexist or racist without being sexist or racist, just because you don't have the context for why what you're doing is wrong. The problem comes in telling people, "I don't want to have hurt someone unintentionally, so I will tell you that you weren't actually hurt by what I did."

To continue your example, if someone says, "hey, there's only one black lesbian in your book and she's the villain, and that happens every time", maybe the question becomes not "is it worth my villain being black and queer", but "why is there only one black queer character in the whole book? Why did I make the decision to make everyone else white? Is it culturally important to the book that the main cast be all white and the villain be black and queer, or did I just think "white and straight" as the default, and then added some personality traits to the villain that demanded they be black and queer"? Will it make the book stronger or weaker if I change a few characters? Can I add some connection between the villain and one or more heroes if they have a shared experience?"

There is no critique whatsoever that is not worth a moment of reflection, except for a critique that you have already reflected on. And sometimes that reflection is very short. But there's no reason not to do it except for a desire not to be wrong, and I have no patience for people who would rather hurt others than admit their mistakes.

"Did I just think of white and straight as the default?" is an interesting question. If I'm writing a textual novel, for example (which, given my lack of artistic talent, is the most likely medium I, personally, would be presenting any fictional work in), I'm not going to describe the skin color and sexual orientation of unimportant characters unless those traits are both a) visible and b) relevant to setting the stage. Such characters - "extras" in movie and play parlance - are all but literally objectified in the sense that they're objects so far as the story cares. Stage dressing. The guards at the royal palace are going to be described by their uniforms, not by their individual traits.

The reason this is interesting, then, is because it means that if a critic says, "She's the only non-white non-straight in the story!" and I'm expected to ask myslef if I thought of "white and straight as the default," I can look at them and ask: "Why are you assuming white and straight is the default?"

Maybe the king's entire personal guard are lesbians, because he's gay and the queen doesn't trust him not to filander AND she doesn't trust straight women not to tempt him because she doesn't believe anybody is 100% gay or straight, so she's minimizing the risks to his fidelity (in her own mind). Is it worth it for me to add that tidbit to the story as worldbuilding? It might add some color to the strained relation between the king and queen, but is it important enough to spend word count on? If it's something I'd quietly had be true but barely aluded to by always referring to the King's Guard with female pronouns, and never having King nor his Guard act in any way interested in each other sexually, but I never mention it overtly and don't make a deliberate effort to hint at even remotely unsubtly, is that "better" than if I'd not thought about it but it happened anyway (perhaps because I was alternating pronouns to demonstrate a mix of sexes in the guard in general, and it just worked out that way)?

Or maybe I just don't care, and the reason the villainess is black is because she's from the otherwise-allied matriarchal nation of Wakanda (or similar) and is deliberately trying to splinter the alliance so that she can exploit the war to take greater power back home, and she's a lesbian because that enables me to have her experience sexual tension-related conflict with my heroine, who is not a lesbian but is the typical heroic fantasy of being the center of a love dodecahedron and is female because that's just how I always conceived of the character, and I don't feel like changing my main character to a guy just to make the villainess straight. (Oh, and, of course, if anybody heard I'd done that, the firestorm would be about the homophobia of my work being so severe that I changed the sex of the main character just to erase a lesbian - who was a different character than the one whose sex I changed - from the story.)

Or if I made !Wakanda patriarchal so I could make the villain a man, not only am I once again engaging in "erasure," but I'm also erasing a woman-dominated society just to do it. Sexist AND homophobic!


"But, Segev, you've just demonstrated that you had good reasons for your choices!"

Yes, I have, but generally speaking? You don't find those traits tacked on at random unless the person is actively trying to be inclusive specifically to avoid the "erasure" and "lack of diversity" claims. And even so, it wouldn't negate the fact that it's yet another black lesbian villainess (if, you know, that's a "problematic trend" the people criticising it are pointing out; to my knowledge, it isn't actually a trend, but we are talking hypotheticals here).


What's the point? My point is that this means you should write what you want t owrite. Consider criticism, but don't consider it if it's rooted in "cultural awareness" or accusations of -ism or -phobia. Consider criticism that bears on the work and its merits. Characterization, not identity groups. Plot and logic, not messaging. Themes, not ideologies. Especially not ideologies you're not deliberately working in, yourself, from the get-go. Most ideological works suck.

[Friv]

Yes, I have, but generally speaking? You don't find those traits tacked on at random unless the person is actively trying to be inclusive specifically to avoid the "erasure" and "lack of diversity" claims. And even so, it wouldn't negate the fact that it's yet another black lesbian villainess (if, you know, that's a "problematic trend" the people criticising it are pointing out; to my knowledge, it isn't actually a trend, but we are talking hypotheticals here).

I think this is where we're going to disagree, because on the other points I mainly agree with you.

I find that these traits are tacked on a lot because someone says, "I want my ruler to use sexuality as a weapon," and then writes a scheming woman because they don't think of men weaponizing sexuality. Or they think, "this guy should be a big scary guy" and then, surprise, the big scary guy is black a lot. Or they want to write a terrorist, and the terrorist is always Middle Eastern even though three quarters of terrorists in the US are white.

There's also the fact that part of the way that defaults work are that people don't bother giving description saying that the king's guards are male, or that the vizier is white, but will always give description saying that a given guard is female, or that a certain courtier is black, because "white" and "male" are so default that it just doesn't come up. Take a look for it some time! Look through books and see how often someone gets described as either white or straight. It is super-rare in most cases, because it's assumed.

Basically I think that you are giving human beings in general way too much credit for being able to notice their own biases without taking a moment to consider them.

I am worried that any discussion that moves from the hypothetical to the specific, such as your cultural awareness comment, cannot be address without resorting to real world politics, so I would rather keep things abstract so that we can keep having an actual philosophical discussion.

[Floret]

Would you mind setting out the moral/ethical foundation for not sexualising people (or is it just women?) in the context of fantasy media? Although I suspect I can guess the thrust of it, I am worried that I miss some of the nuances.

If, amongst multiple groups that should be equal, one is portrayed in media as defined to a higher degree by their physical appearance, sex appeal, ****ability, however you wanna call it, that does send the message that this group is defined by this, and that has implications in real life for the consumers of media (i.e., everyone).

The bigger the degree of difference, the worse. But, even if things should be equal between different groups, if the only options for a group to be seen as valuable focusses on or necessarily includes said trait to a big degree, that presents a similar problem.

So the ideal situation would involve
A) A balance between all groups that should be equal (pornstars or underwear models being displayed more sexualised than lumberjacks would seem more natural, women more than men very much not so).
B) A balance between different options for members of all groups, so everyone can see themselves, and different options to aspire to.

I note that I did say "without good reason". Can we agree that this is an exercise in balancing two things - the good of artisitic freedom and people being able to watch/read the media they like against whatever harm the publication of the type of media does? Hopefully we can agree on that even though agreeing what value to assign to each side of the equation may be more difficult.

We absolutely can agree on that.

Agree to disagree on this one?

Sure.

I don't believe the market is neutral or perfect, but I tend to think it is the best mechanism that we (humanity) have come up with for seeing people's preferences met, although because it is not perfect I think it should be modified by regulation in some places. I'm not sure if this makes me an avid believer or not.

Not as avid as I would have expected from your other statements, but definitely believing in it more than I do.

First, for context, I have never seen Red Sonja or Conan comics before (although I did see a Schwarzeneger Conan film), so my perspective comes entirely from a google images search (which tends to display the covers of their comics).

Well, we are both equal on that, then. I'm not sure about the comparison being that relevant, but while your list of possibilities is a good analysis, it very definitely isn't just different google results.

Also, on reflection, the willfull blindness was a bit harsh and I apologize. Onto the analysis!

If they are, would you mind saying why you find the Red Sonja image more sexualised than the Conan one.

I do, indeed find her to be a lot more sexualised than him in those images.

First of all, let's look at how I'd define sexualisation:
1. Focus on the sexual characteristics of a person. What counts as those differs between men and women, generally. In general, I would count:
1.1. For men: Butt and... bulge.
1.2. For women: Breasts and butt. Legs opened in a suggestive pose.
2. For focus, I'd count a pose that pronounces these parts to be more sexualising.
2.1. Especially problematic if the pose strains physical possibility to achieve this focus. See the classic butts
3. Facial expression can also play a part, a "come hither" look, for example.

There are a lot of other factors, but they are harder to write clear guidelines on. With that in mind, let's look at the images you linked:

For Red Sonja, her breast are rather central, and her outfit (a bra, basically) helps pronounce them. Her sword is raised so far you can see the cleavage, where a more realisitic swing would probably stop lower. Her butt is out of frame, yes, but her loincloth seems to both resist the weather, as well as point almost arrow-like to her crotch. The pose is otherwise not notable, and her face is angry, and definitely not seductive. Could be worse, but definite elements of sexualisation.

For Conan, his sword pose actively hides his sexual characteristics (his possible bulge). His butt is squarely out of frame, and he is hunched over, masking his impressive muscles somewhat, and definitely not drawing attention to them. His pose hides his body, Sonjas exposes hers. His face is neutral, I'd describe it as stern. There is no sexualisation whatsoever I'd notice here.

[Liquor Box]

Well, not easy to put a precise analysis on what exactly is wrong with the image, but I'll try

- The pose thrusts out both her breasts and her bare buttocks, with the upward camera shot and the wide open stance adding emphasis to them

- The "long glove - long boots" combo draws attention to the fact that the torso area between them is pretty much naked

- The open chain links holding the chainloincloth and the chainbra are putting emphasis to the fact that she's got nothing under them, just as lace lingerie would do (how does this loincloth hold, anyway?)

- Bonus point for the garter-like sheath that allows her to keep her dagger pressed against her bare thight when she's runningn

I've seen worse (she looks kinda fierce, the boots and gloves could have been longer, no high-heels...), but I can't remember seeing a Conan cover that purposefully draw attention to his bare buttocks. But I'm no specialist ^^

Sure, Conan is often represented with a fair amount of bare skin, but his loincloth looks like it's been ripped from the nearest bear, not bought from a kinky lingerie store. A cover of a Conan-like, loincloth-clad, barechested Sonja holding a broadsword would have more skin and naughty bits showing, and yet I think it would feel less sexualized than this one.

Thank you for setting out your thoughts on why Red Sonja is different. I note as follows when comparing Red Sonja to the Conan covers:

• In terms of Sonja's chest and buttock's being thrust out, that appears to be because she is crouching. There are several examples of Conan crouching, although they tend not to have the same side view, so his buttocks are not visibile (although his chest is thust out). I'm not sure what you mena by an upward camera angle and wide open shot because I don't know much about photography, so I will take your word that they are different for SOnja than for Coana.
• In terms of the long boot/glove combo, Conan also has boots of about the same height and wrist bands which suggest the same effect.
• In terms of the open links showing that there's nothing underneath, and thus has a similar effect to lingerie, I accept that. I also accept that the overall impression of the chainmail bikini is different from Conan's fur loincloth.
• In terms of the bonus points for the garter like sheath, I note that Conan has similar nands around his biceps (which, unlike Sonja, do not seem to serve a purpose at all).

In the end I think I will concede that Sonja is more sexualised, mostly because of your point that a chainmail bikini has different implications than a fur loincloth. But I think the difference in degree of sexualisation is subtle, and not blindingly obvious like some have suggested. Thank you again for taking the time to set it out.

Edit:
Floret, I see you have responded to me while I was responding to Kardwill. I'm sorry, I a cannot respond now, but I will do so.

[Talakeal]

Well, not easy to put a precise analysis on what exactly is wrong with the image, but I'll try

- The pose thrusts out both her breasts and her bare buttocks, with the upward camera shot and the wide open stance adding emphasis to them

- The "long glove - long boots" combo draws attention to the fact that the torso area between them is pretty much naked

- The open chain links holding the chainloincloth and the chainbra are putting emphasis to the fact that she's got nothing under them, just as lace lingerie would do (how does this loincloth hold, anyway?)

- Bonus point for the garter-like sheath that allows her to keep her dagger pressed against her bare thight when she's runningn

I've seen worse (she looks kinda fierce, the boots and gloves could have been longer, no high-heels...), but I can't remember seeing a Conan cover that purposefully draw attention to his bare buttocks. But I'm no specialist ^^

Sure, Conan is often represented with a fair amount of bare skin, but his loincloth looks like it's been ripped from the nearest bear, not bought from a kinky lingerie store. A cover of a Conan-like, loincloth-clad, barechested Sonja holding a broadsword would have more skin and naughty bits showing, and yet I think it would feel less sexualized than this one.

I totally agree that Sonjas butt is often displayed while I,dont think that Conans ever is.

I also hate it when outfits put a extraneous amounts of clothing on the lower arms and legs to either draw attention to or make up for the lack of clothing on the central body, but that is really more of a personal pet peeve. Especially those stupid iron vambraces that so many fantasy warriors wear that have no real life analogue.

And I do agree that most definitions are hard to apply 1:1 to a female character. I personally distinguish by "would a real life woman being treated this way be in so way reduced from being the subject of what's going on, and be made into an object".

Which something like a gaynax cam (or panty shots, etc.) do btw. For the purposes of the panty shot, no matter how badass the character is killing zombies, if the camera then goes ahead to focus on her butt, she is the object of a leery gaze, be it in addition to the subject of zombie slaughter or not. The character is more removed from being clearly a subject in the scene.

"Men act, women are" is a sentence used in this regard, and at the root of this problem. Of course every character fluctuates in the percentages of how much they are subject of the action in any given scene, but if there is always an added "also the object of affection/attraction/lust" with every action a character takes, they are more objectified then a character to whom that not (as consistently) happens. And if the spectrum for male characters is consistently higher on the "subject" level then that of female characters... that reflects a cultural trend I personally am not a fan of and would like changed.

And now I am even more confused.

Its really hard for me to think of a memorable fictional character who is more defined by what they do than what they are regardless of gender. Can you give me some examples?


So the problem with objectification is about women systematically being depicted as attractive?

Would say, filming in such a way that Jason Voorhes is scary, or The Fonz is cool, or Doc Brown is funny, or Riddick is dangerous be equally objectifying because you are focusing on the emotions they cause in other people rather than their deeper personality? But it isnt bad because it isnt a pattern of objectification based on their demographic group? Is that right?

I am always very curious every time this topic comes up because I am a content creator but genuinly dont understand a lot of the issues at hand. Given further that I am probably in a wierd position as a trans-questioning man with a sensory processing disorder. I personally like skimpy clothes on myself and others, find elaborate costumes to be a turn off no matter how sexualized they are, am attracted to strong athletic women and envious of pretty seductresses and damsels in distress.

[Segev]

I think this is where we're going to disagree, because on the other points I mainly agree with you.

I find that these traits are tacked on a lot because someone says, "I want my ruler to use sexuality as a weapon," and then writes a scheming woman because they don't think of men weaponizing sexuality. Or they think, "this guy should be a big scary guy" and then, surprise, the big scary guy is black a lot. Or they want to write a terrorist, and the terrorist is always Middle Eastern even though three quarters of terrorists in the US are white.

I think people just pick out any time a "big scary guy" is black and say "see? It's a trend!" while ignoring all the times a big, scary guy is white, hispanic, asian, or the like.

Also, not only would I dispute (were this not the wrong thread for a real-world discussion) the assertion that 2/3 of terrorists in the USA are white (or at the very least, the implications meant to be made by such claims), but I will utterly dispute the notion that terrorists in media are usually muslim/middle eastern. They almost never are. Every time it looks like they might be, it turns out to be a frame job by some evil "conservative" group that is primarily made up of white men. Moreover, anybody who buys that it was middle eastern muslims is usually either in cahoots with the real villains (and thus lying), or an ******* we're supposed to loathe. The heroes are all wise and cautious about leaping to conclusions and are born out to be right.

I can think of a few examples of this sort, but only one where the terrorists really are Muslim (and in that one, they're made out to be sympathetic). (The primary example of the first sort is the Liam Nieson movie where he's an air marshal, and then there are several episodes of NCIS and Law and Order that play to this trope; the one example of the other sort is Jack Ryan.)

So, no, I dispute the very notion that there's a problematic over-representation of minorities as bad people; I'd go so far as to claim it's the other way around, with a deliberate overabundance of attempts at subverting a trope that hasn't actually ever manifested as a trend.

But this is getting WAY off topic of chainmail bikinis.

There's also the fact that part of the way that defaults work are that people don't bother giving description saying that the king's guards are male, or that the vizier is white, but will always give description saying that a given guard is female, or that a certain courtier is black, because "white" and "male" are so default that it just doesn't come up. Take a look for it some time! Look through books and see how often someone gets described as either white or straight. It is super-rare in most cases, because it's assumed.

Are you sure that they're the default by the author's standards, and that hte author isn't just describing important ones? Maybe it's your own biases that are making you assume that, even though only one guard is described as specifically black, the others must be white by default.

Basically I think that you are giving human beings in general way too much credit for being able to notice their own biases without taking a moment to consider them.

One of my favorite games is designed to expose these, actually. Invert the sex of every character in a scene or work, changing as little as possible while avoiding making it an unintentional example of cross-dressing or trans-representation (because that's not the point of the exercise), and then examine the scene to see if anything stands out as more jarring than with the sexes as they originally were written.

I am worried that any discussion that moves from the hypothetical to the specific, such as your cultural awareness comment, cannot be address without resorting to real world politics, so I would rather keep things abstract so that we can keep having an actual philosophical discussion.

That's fair. We should definitely pull back on this as is, I think.

[S@tanicoaldo]

Sure, showing skin is only one aspect of sexualisation. I think this was covered several pages back.

However, it then remains for the people who are saying one set of depictions is sexualisation and another is not, to point to what it is that distinguishes the two.

The comparison earlier in the thread was Conan (from the comics) and Red Sonja.
- Googling Conan shows the image of a man, usually carrying a weapon, usually skimpily dressed in clothes that don't act as armour in any practical way, usually in an action pose, with a good body (in that it looks fit and strong and conventionally attractive), usually wearing practical footwear.

And that's a power fantasy because most guys want to be a dude with tons of muscles, who looks good and is a huge badass.

- Googling Red SOnja shows the image of a woman, usually carrying a weapon, usually skimpily dressed in clothes that don't act as armour in any practical way, usually in an action pose, with a good body (in that it looks fit and strong and conventionally attractive), usually wearing practical footwear.

In the original art? HECK YEAH! I love Frank Frazetta, and he did not use nudity as something sexy or sexual but as soemethig natural, the problem is that modern artists who do her art and do not get that.

Take a look at this original Red Sonja and other Conan female art:

Spoiler

Show

They are nude indeed but it's not portraited in a sexual way, it's wild and fierce.

Now look at her modern depictions:

Spoiler

Show

Noticed something? Like a pattern? Now tell me is there Conan Art where the main focus of the image is his butt?

That's the problem, it's not the chain-mail bikinis, it's the use of it to show her "assets" rather than her Barbarian nature.

Can you imagine how dumb Conan would look in a pose where his ass is the main focus? That's the problem. Most guys can't see how dumb focusing on Red Sonja's butt is while we can.

And the issue is that almost every female character has to deal with this crap.

Take a look at this Avengers poster:

Spoiler

Show

While all the male heros have a heoric pose showing off their powers, weapons or bravery, what's the main focus on Black widow? That's rigth. Her butt.

Can imagine how silly that would look like if the roles were inversed? Here let me help you:

Spoiler

Show

That's rigth very silly. So this double standard is the main problem, at least in my view.

Probably true for Seth and Zangief but there is a disturbing amount of Kratos-porn and masturbation fuel.
I would not think he is mainstream sexy but he surely has his fans and gets sexualized by them a lot.

It is not that surprising. It is similar with Overwatchs Mei. She is certainly not the type that entertainment industry thinks is the epitome of sexiness. She doesn't even show much skin. But she seems to have even more sexual "fanart" than Mercy or Tracer. Just because she appeals to a segment of the population that is mostly ignored by everyone else.

But fans sexualing charatcers is not the same as the characters being sexualied. Kratos is not someone most women would want to date, he has an angry face and crazy eyes, he's not handsome, he's just muscular.

Guys think that just becuase he's half naked it means that he's being sexualized but that's nit true.

To guys this would be a sexualized male outfit:

Spoiler: NSFW

Show

When in reality if we are going to use what women in games and chain-mail bikinis look like they should be wearing somethign like this to be sexualized:

Spoiler: REALLY NSFW

Show

Can you see the difference now? It's not about showing skin it's about the way you show skin.

[Segev]

And that's a power fantasy because most guys want to be a dude with tons of muscles, who looks good and is a huge badass.

So... even though you could probably find as many women who want to have bigger breasts and curvier hips (alternatively "be slimmer"), depicting slender but curvy women is not a power fantasy for women, but because there are a lot of guys who want to be big and muscular, depicting men that way IS a power fantasy for men.

Do I have this right?

[The Jack]

Let me just allay some stuff. (even though I'll probably spike it up)

Whites are going to be the default In Europe and much of the united states. Or at the very least in Europe it doesn't really matter what race someone is. We have racism, but there's obviously a huge difference between African Americans and every other kind of African. For NW europe a black individual would be thought of as exotic and not so much the product of disenfranchisement and slavery. European racism's tied more to religion or language than skin. I remember one time where I based a game in Atlanta, mentioned a dead body, and forgot to mention the race in Atlanta of all places. This is because hey, for most of us Europeans, we're used to defaults and racism isn't really on our minds. Like in my head I thought of a black character given demographics, but it didn't actually register to me that It was important in that very moment and didn't mention it. But of course, if we were playing an African game or an Asian game, the default would change. It's not an issue of racism. Most places on the planet aren't such a hodgepodge that you have to say everyone's race because there is no default.

Most western fantasy is set in the west, so the white assumption is completely logical and Japanese/Korean/Chinese art styles tend to make you think characters are white even when they're not. That doesn't help things much

"I want my ruler to use sexuality as a weapon," and then writes a scheming woman because they don't think of men weaponizing sexuality

Let's say you actually use a man. How the **** are you going to pull that off convincingly? Like you can do it, but it's going to be a damn lot harder
A rapist who uses fear? I don't think that works in higher circles.
A dude that seduces powerful women? Outside of trying to get that diplomatic marriage it's Not very sustainable. People'd definetly try to tear the lady down if they thought she was influenced by a man in such a way, and you'd be enforcing some negative gender stereotypes. That said this is of course a great topic for romance novels...
A dude that seduces the wives that influence powerful lords.. It'd be hilarious.
Ancient Cultures accepting of homosexuality, (Greeks,Romans,Vikings) were very dismissive of subs. Perhaps there are examples counter to this, but all I know is fuedal japan and I'm not entirely sure of their nuance. Anyhow that dismissing of subs so common is going either force much more secrecy than a female schemer would or the status of one of the men will lower to the point where it's counterproductive for schemes.

I don't think there are familiar societies (which we all base our fantasy societies on) which are good for male seducers. Sure, you can handwave it with 'it's fantasy', use something obscure, or go big and create a convincing sociology, but handwaves generally are a lessening of whatever you're writing.

[Sir_Chivalry]

So... even though you could probably find as many women who want to have bigger breasts and curvier hips (alternatively "be slimmer"), depicting slender but curvy women is not a power fantasy for women, but because there are a lot of guys who want to be big and muscular, depicting men that way IS a power fantasy for men.

Do I have this right?

Depends, is this curvier bustier woman being written as an object of desire for male viewers or as a power fantasy? How would this power fantasy character manifest in a way which wasn't to excite male viewers? If lesbian and bisexual female viewers are considered too by all means include them in your idea but what are you envisioning that hypothetically proves the point you're trying for?

[S@tanicoaldo]

So... even though you could probably find as many women who want to have bigger breasts and curvier hips (alternatively "be slimmer"), depicting slender but curvy women is not a power fantasy for women, but because there are a lot of guys who want to be big and muscular, depicting men that way IS a power fantasy for men.

Do I have this right?

I guess, why not do an experiemnt.

Take a bunch of your male friends and family members and show them these pcitures of Conan:

Spoiler

Show

Ask them if they would want to exchange life with him for a day, but they would not be allowed to change clothes or wepaons.

Now show a bunch of pcitures of Scarlat form Mortal Kombat for your female friends and family members:

Spoiler

Show

Same deal ask them if they would want to exchange life with her for a day, but they would not be allowed to change clothes or weapons.

Tell me the results.

Spolier:

I did this at my job and with my fmaily members and I used a generic Barbarian to prove it was not about Coana being famous.

Results:

Spoiler

Show

38 of the 40 men I talked to wanted to be a powerful and strong Barbarian while 2 of the 40 women wanted to be a female ninja dressed like a stripper. The ones that did only wanted to do it to have a privete time with their partners or to rob a bank, none wanted to actually BE the character for what she is.

[Max_Killjoy]

Now look at her modern depictions:

Spoiler

Show

Noticed something? Like a pattern? Now tell me is there Conan Art where the main focus of the image is his butt?

That's the problem, it's not the chain-mail bikinis, it's the use of it to show her "assets" rather than her Barbarian nature.

Can you imagine how dumb Conan would look in a pose where his ass is the main focus? That's the problem. Most guys can't see how dumb focusing on Red Sonja's butt is while we can.

And the issue is that almost every female character has to deal with this crap.

Yeap... especially for comics, and artists inspired by or who cut their teeth in comics, this was for a long time THE way to draw a female character if she was the cover art or the centerpiece of a splash page.

And it's Exhibit A in demonstrating the ridiculous visual depiction of female characters that's way too common in "genre" art.

It's art like this, and a lot of the STUPID fan art of female characters, that makes me hesitate to even try to have anything I'm writing published, because for certain at some point some art producer, artist, or drooling nitwit fanboy, would end up doing this sort of garbage to my female characters.




We live in a world where the head of the international governing body of soccer once commented as if it were the most natural thing that women's soccer would be more popular if the players wore tighter smaller uniforms.

How anyone can actually argue that women (and female characters / those who write or draw them) don't face a ton of pathetic sexualization, and pressure to be sexy, and pressure to define themselves by their sexiness... is beyond me.

[S@tanicoaldo]

Let's say you actually use a man. How the **** are you going to pull that off convincingly?

Joe Manganiello shows how it's done Hahahahahahaha. (This is a joke and obviously comic relief played for laughs)

Well, never heard of Don Juan, Zoro and the many princes charming?

[Sir_Chivalry]

You want a male ruler who uses their sexuality to manipulate people.

Well much like when you're writing a female character who does this, they should be charming, usually publically imperious or cold depending while privately manipulative

Often a female character like this is either stringing along a series of suitors for political gain or setting a puppet spouse up with a set of horns. Nothing about that (save the politics and history of that last term) are exclusive to women and you can easily have a bachelor king or one who is going to sideline his consort

Dress nice, favor physical contact, always know what the target wants. There are real people in the real world who are trained to do that and some of them are men. And in history some political movers have used seduction to get what they want.

[S@tanicoaldo]

You want a male ruler who uses their sexuality to manipulate people.

Well much like when you're writing a female character who does this, they should be charming, usually publically imperious or cold depending while privately manipulative

Often a female character like this is either stringing along a series of suitors for political gain or setting a puppet spouse up with a set of horns. Nothing about that (save the politics and history of that last term) are exclusive to women and you can easily have a bachelor king or one who is going to sideline his consort

Dress nice, favor physical contact, always know what the target wants. There are real people in the real world who are trained to do that and some of them are men. And in history some political movers have used seduction to get what they want.

He would also be able to charm men, since he would probrably get laid a lot and tons of guys would want to be like him, so he would have many followers who would anything to please their idol.

That's how manipulative men act around other men Irl.

[Talakeal]

I guess, why not do an experiemnt.

Take a bunch of your male friends and family members and show them these pcitures of Conan:

Spoiler

Show

Ask them if they would want to exchange life with him for a day, but they would not be allowed to change clothes or wepaons.

Now show a bunch of pcitures of Scarlat form Mortal Kombat for your female friends and family members:

Spoiler

Show

Same deal ask them if they would want to exchange life with her for a day, but they would not be allowed to change clothes or weapons.

Tell me the results.

Spolier:

I did this at my job and with my fmaily members and I used a generic Barbarian to prove it was not about Coana being famous.

Results:

Spoiler

Show

38 of the 40 men I talked to wanted to be a powerful and strong Barbarian while 2 of the 40 women wanted to be a female ninja dressed like a stripper. The ones that did only wanted to do it to have a privete time with their partners or to rob a bank, none wanted to actually BE the character for what she is.

What does that have to do with outfits though?

Isnt that way more about different gender's attitudes towards violence?

[S@tanicoaldo]

What does that have to do with outfits though?

Isnt that way more about different gender's attitudes towards violence?

They are both powerful fantasy warriors dressed with little to nothing.

[Floret]

And, if you were bothered enough to ask them to stop, would they be obligated to do so lest they be cruel monsters responsible for your pain

A), I don't appreciate your tone, nor your ad hominems.

B), I said nothing ever of obligation, and you should stop responding to arguments that weren't made.

Well, there IS a way to make it, but you may not wish to expend the time and resources needed to do so, as they may be prohibitive for you, personally.

No, making "this exaxt thing but without element x" is indeed, not possible. Something really similar? Sure. This exact thing? No. There are things such as "budget" and "copyright law".

But you're absolutely right. The choices are out there, however, for things which cater more or less to your desires. And learning to develop a thicker skin is just part of life: you're right, there will never be the ideal work just for you if you don't make it, yourself. There will always be things you don't like. Things that upset you. Things you have to put up with and ignore if you want to enjoy works.

I just can't help myself responding to ad hominems, can I? If my skin wasn't thick and hardened, I'd have quit this world long ago. My identity is used as a punchline by comedians and leading politicians on the daily, and I've long learned to choose my media not on what doesn't hurt, but on what hurts less, because digs against who I am are pervasive and everywhere. But just because I can stand the world, just because I survive, does not mean I have to be quiet about things that displease me. Making art is not the only way to get more things that you like. Influencing creators is, too. And I have every right to try and do so. Suffering in silence is meaningless. Do not confuse my anger for weakness.

But when you start to tell people that a work is bad because of them, you ARE judging everybody who likes it. That's also your right. Just be aware that they have as much right to judge you.

So? I can deal with people judging me for my opinions. I stand by them. There are large groups of people that want me dead for existing. People judging me based on my opinions is a nice step up.

There is nothing you can do to enforce "cultural responsibility" without force, save vote with your feet/dollars/attention.

Good, cause I don't want that. I explicitly said so. Stop arguing against strawmen.

The very notion that artists have "cultural responsibility" is one that is quietly, sneakily, subtly calling for slavery.

Everyone bears responsibility for their actions. The more impactful the actions, the more carefully should that resonsibility be considered and the more responsibility there is. Or do you disagree that people bear responsibility for the consequences or their actions? Because publishing and making art is in fact an action, and people's responses and the influence the artwork has on them are consequence of those actions.

You can rail for "getting politics out of art" all you like. It's impossible to achieve, it's just the stuff you agree with doesn't seem so much like politics to you.

And now I am even more confused.

Its really hard for me to think of a memorable fictional character who is more defined by what they do than what they are regardless of gender. Can you give me some examples?

Really? Even by the oldest Fantasy book, this is the entire point of Samwise Gamgee. And hobbits in general. The point of countless works of fiction. Moist von Lipwig (Discworld). Temple (Red Country). Lawrence (His Majesties Dragon). Tyrion Lannister, struggling to define himself despite who he is. Allison Hargreeves (Umbrella Academy, webseries). Poe (Altered Carbon). Rayla (The Dragon Prince). Aang (Avatar: The last Airbender). Basically everyone else from most of these.

...and yes, I notice how male this list is. I truly do. And I tried to not have it that way, but here we are. Sure, who they are plays a part. But their actions play a greater one and move them beyond that. There actions are what makes them memorable. Not their self, birth, appearance, or what have you.

So the problem with objectification is about women systematically being depicted as attractive?

Would say, filming in such a way that Jason Voorhes is scary, or The Fonz is cool, or Doc Brown is funny, or Riddick is dangerous be equally objectifying because you are focusing on the emotions they cause in other people rather than their deeper personality? But it isnt bad because it isnt a pattern of objectification based on their demographic group? Is that right?

Not quite attractive. Just... that they also have to be attractive. I mean, let's take Overwatch. Pretty nice diversity amongst their female characters, actually... and then look at the difference between the male body types on that. The difference between Zaryas face, and how much it differs from standards of attraciveness, and then take Junkrat. Or Reinhard. Or Thorbjorn. And Zarya is probably the woman most removed from the standard... Also, how many dudes get to wear masks? And... no(?) Woman? Always a pretty face to see...

But yes, the root of the problem is in the pattern.

I would also, however, object to the problem being emotions they cause in people. I wouldn't really call attraction an emotion... not at the same level as those others.

Edit: Holy **** were there many comments while I was writing.

[Segev]

Depends, is this curvier bustier woman being written as an object of desire for male viewers or as a power fantasy? How would this power fantasy character manifest in a way which wasn't to excite male viewers? If lesbian and bisexual female viewers are considered too by all means include them in your idea but what are you envisioning that hypothetically proves the point you're trying for?

So, then, your argument is that the target audience is inherently a problem?

Let's be honest, here: if you're moving to how the character is WRITTEN and not just how he or she is drawn, you're getting into the story and who it's written for. If a work is targeted at a particular demographic, "Guys want her and women want to be her" will be targeted towards women, and "Girls want him and men want to be him," will be targeted towards men. THe men in the first, and the women in the second, will be written primarily as objects of desire, because being desired by those desirable men/women (respectively) is part of the power fantasy for the target audience.

We're now back to criticizing the target audience of the entire work.

I guess, why not do an experiemnt.

Take a bunch of your male friends and family members and show them these pcitures of Conan:

Spoiler

Show

Ask them if they would want to exchange life with him for a day, but they would not be allowed to change clothes or wepaons.

Now show a bunch of pcitures of Scarlat form Mortal Kombat for your female friends and family members:

Spoiler

Show

Same deal ask them if they would want to exchange life with her for a day, but they would not be allowed to change clothes or weapons.

Tell me the results.

Spolier:

I did this at my job and with my fmaily members and I used a generic Barbarian to prove it was not about Coana being famous.

Results:

Spoiler

Show

38 of the 40 men I talked to wanted to be a powerful and strong Barbarian while 2 of the 40 women wanted to be a female ninja dressed like a stripper. The ones that did only wanted to do it to have a privete time with their partners or to rob a bank, none wanted to actually BE the character for what she is.

I'm a bit surprised that guys would want to be that particular barbarian, especially with the call-out that you can't change clothes. He looks dirty and miserable, and his outfit looks horrifically uncomfortable. Not to mention, he's ugly.

Now, maybe it's just because I'm not attracted to men (though I doubt it; I have seen men I would say, "I'd like to look more like him; he's handsome"), but that guy in those images doesn't look like somebody I'd expect a woman to be hot for. I also wouldn't expect guys to want to be him; he doesn't look powerful so much as miserable.

That doesn't mean your results are invalid; I am just surprised by them.

I'm less surprised by the results of the female one. That looks uncomfortable and embarassing by modern standards, and she doesn't look any happier than the barbarian-dude. I am slightly surprised you got so few takers in comparison, but only because she actually is a physically attractive woman with a pretty face, which at least doesn't leave the poor girl trapped in her body being miserable, embarassingly unclad, and ugly.

I also can't recognize that particular female character; more iconic ones might include Xena, Gabrielle, Naga the White Serpent, and She-Ra. I tried to only name those in what might be considered "Fan-servicy" outfits, so some stand-out examples (e.g. Lina Inverse) are left out because their outfits are not particularly scanty.

Heck, Naga's is notoriously skimpy, but I find it remarkably unsexy, personally. It have to stop and look at it to realize how skimpy it is, because it doesn't stand out as such to me for some reason. It probably would on a real, live woman, but something about the art style makes it seem unremarkable as well as unalluring to me.

[Sir_Chivalry]

So, then, your argument is that the target audience is inherently a problem?

Let's be honest, here: if you're moving to how the character is WRITTEN and not just how he or she is drawn, you're getting into the story and who it's written for. If a work is targeted at a particular demographic, "Guys want her and women want to be her" will be targeted towards women, and "Girls want him and men want to be him," will be targeted towards men. THe men in the first, and the women in the second, will be written primarily as objects of desire, because being desired by those desirable men/women (respectively) is part of the power fantasy for the target audience.

We're now back to criticizing the target audience of the entire work.

Not really though good point we mustn't demonize the audience

I was asking you to provide an example of how this character would exist. You're claiming the character would be a power fantasy, can you expand on that, provide examples?

[Talakeal]

They are both powerful fantasy warriors dressed with little to nothing.

But what does that have to do with outfits or objectification or sexualization or any of the other topics we are discussing in this thread?

The most obvious conclusion I can draw from your experiment is that women are less into violence, which really seems more like something one of the MRAs would say on the media subforum while decrying the existence of female led action movies.