I've enjoyed:
Google GGA:
|
|
Links
Alice Taylor
Clint Hocking Costik Derek Daniels The Edge electro^plankton Gamasutra Game Critics GameDevBlog GameFAQs Game Jew Game Poets Society Game Set Watch Gamevideos.com Gewgaw Got Game? Grand Text Auto Grrl Gamer Henry Jenkins Heroine-Sheik IGDA Indie Game Jam Insert Credit Invisible City Julian Dibbell KillerBetties Kim Pallister Kongregate Kotaku Lost Garden Ludology Magic Box Margaret Robinson Matteo Bittanti Memory Card Ogre Cave Penny Arcade Raph Koster Reality Panic Serious Games Shiny Shiny Slash Dot Games Surfer Girl Terra Nova ToastyFrog Tokyopia Water Cooler Games Women Gamers Zen of Design
Thank You for Donating!
If you'd like to help keep GGA afloat, we thank you!
Mascot by Penny Arcade!
|
February 02, 2005
Game-Smart Women on Sex in Videogames
The women of Killer Betties had a discussion on the topic of sex in videogames recently. Lots of good stuff here, if you don't mind putting up with the fragmented chat log format. Note that a few of the links from that chat log are not entirely work-safe. Tangential to the actual topic, but interesting to this Y-chromosomer was this exchange: Lila: I hate to say this but some women who are already in the industry get territorial. Comments
WOW this is really great stuff Ben. There's no doubt that the territorial aspect exists. Being the one kickass gamer girl in a boy's club has always had appeal, especially to girls who grew up as tomboys (as many gamer girls did i suspect) and who are used to being one of just a handful of girls. while most of the women gamers i've met are extremely happy to meet another woman who's interested in games, sometimes i've felt a whiff of "there's only room for one" - but then i wondered if that wasn't my own insecurity projected onto someone else. ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.gamegirladvance.com/nav-commenters.gif) on February 2, 2005 11:51 AM
Follow-up: the whole thread is FASCINATING. beyond just the territorial aspect, the women talk about how sexuality can be used in games and advertising in a way that makes sense, what they enjoy and don't enjoy, etc. re: the Playboy spread of a videogame character. this is somewhat troublesome to me not because it's a scantily clad woman, but because this spread has actually taken the whole fake-boobs-massive-airbrushing thing to the logical extreme - that is, to create a FAKE woman for men to enjoy. what repurcussions would this have for healthy sexual relationships between real men and real women? i've read before that anime porn or manga porn has created a real fetish among japanese male consumers, who then find that it's more difficult to be excited by pictures of actual women. god, do you think those guys get laid by real women at all?? or are they happy with their digital fantasies? i've noticed that in mainstream porn there is an undercurrent of return to natural - natural boobs. the amateur porn industry, which is really taking off now thanks in part to cheaper equipt. and internet distribution, also often features natural breasts (as well as a lot of other extreme stuff that some may find very disturbing). my instinct is that this is a backlash against the overly-fake looking bodies of the late nineties, when the surgery just started getting so extreme. but the fact that they are starting to feature totally fake women in men's magazines... i just don't know how i feel about that. ultimately i think it may be the young male consumers who are going to be the losers, as where are they going to find a real woman who conforms to the ideal of beauty promoted in the pages of their porn? will the sexes become more alienated as a result? Posted by: jane on February 2, 2005 12:02 PM
I think the "there can be only one" attitude crops up generally wherever there's a gender imbalance. Certainly, I've noticed a lot over the years that relationships between the few women in a LARP or roleplaying society can be... stormy. This may be a combination of personality type (quite a few women in this situation are likely to be more comfortable with men than women) and "this town ain't big enough for two of us" - after all, everyone likes to feel special. I'd imagine the same is true of a situation where there are only a few men and many women. Posted by: Hugh "Nomad" Hancock on February 3, 2005 02:01 AM
i wondered about that myself, hugh - but i can't think of many forums where there are many many more women than men. hm. my drama club in high school? my chorus in college? but in the last instance i think men were glad to have other men join because they didn't want to be the only one. a ballroom dancing session i went to - but there a lot of the men seemed shy and uncomfortable. what else? i'm wracking my brain. of course it's not quite 8 in the morning yet so the coffee probably hasn't sunk in... Posted by: jane on February 3, 2005 07:50 AM
Nursing college, from some of my friends' comments. Logically, there *have* to be as many places where women outnumber men as vica versa, right? The society is more or less 50/50, after all... I suspect also, on second thought, that societal conditioning and just plain old sexual politics mean that the reactions are different. For starters, women don't worry nearly so much about being seen to be "blokey" (I'm going all British here) as men in the reverse position. Indeed, I suspect that the reason why you see less "lots of girls, few guys" situations is because most guys are afraid of appearing "girly" to a greater or lesser extent, by participating in an activity that "only girls" do. They might not put it like that, but they are. (I'm thinking of the lyrics to Madonna's "What it feels like for a girl" here - "Girls can wear jeans Conversely, a woman in a male-dominated environment is likely to attract a "harem" of guys much more quickly than the other way around, because of the give and take of the species' courtship dance. And this "harem" effect is one of the reasons why women get hostile to each other in male-dominated environments, as far as I can tell - it's very nice to have half-a-dozen members of the opposite sex more or less worshipping you, and I've observed that women in that situation are more easily threatened by the presence of other women. (And further to that - the reason that a woman might be uncomfortable in a mostly-male society would have more to do with fear of being repeatedly hit on. However, in geek circles, the men are likely to be quite shy, reducing that danger. That's my theory - accurate?) Posted by: Hugh "Nomad" Hancock on February 3, 2005 02:07 PM
I think women are just naturally territorial. I mean, go to a mall for example, and see how many dirty looks you get from other women. Sex is so much a focus of our society that women have become (might always have been, i dont know) extremely competitive with each other, constantly sizing up the girl next to them (even if its their friend). I know I personally usually make friends with guys easier, because there isnt all that drama with them. If you wear the wrong shirt, they don't care, on the other hand, another girl might take it as a weakness in you and use it to boost herself in her mind. Being a comp sci and math major in a small university I know what its like to be the only girl, and when a new girl comes along you do feel a little territorial, but its not any more than I would feel if another girl was talking to one of my guy friends. And as far as Hugh's theory on geek circles, I agree with it, plus its my observation that those guys tend to be a little nicer and more respectful to women. Posted by: NekoTenshi on August 16, 2005 01:11 PM
ERM... I THINK THAT WOMEN ARE JUST MORE COMPETITIVE THEN MEN AND I THINK THATS MORE SO AGAINST ANOTHER GIRL, ESPECIALLY. ALOT OF THE GIRL GAMERS I KNO GENERALLY TAKE IT EASY WHEN THEY ARE PLAYING WITH US LADS AND THEN PROCEED TO RIP EACH OTHER TO RIBBONS, WHEN THEY PLAY EACH OTHER. SO I THINK MOST WOMEN WOULD TAKE IT VERY PERSONALLY IF ANOTHER WOMAN INFRINGED ON THIER SPACE, BUT THATS JUST MY OPINION. Posted by: REBBELWIVCAUSE on February 3, 2006 10:44 PM
http://boom194.proboards67.com/index.cgi?general on March 15, 2006 08:28 PM
http://boom194.proboards67.com/index.cgi?general on March 15, 2006 08:40 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out) (If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
|
I've enjoyed:
Archives
August 2009
July 2009 June 2009 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 Category Archives
About GGA (15) Academia (26) Advertising (3) Art (25) Books (9) Business (42) Conferences (18) Criticism (22) Culture (20) Design (6) Economics (6) Entertainment (19) Events (65) Experimental (32) Fashion (25) Features (18) Food (3) Fun (16) Gender (26) Humor (35) Jane's Journal (78) Journalism (27) Law (18) Marketing (10) Military (3) MMOG (33) Movies (16) Music (18) News (16) People (37) Politics (42) Preview (4) Research (14) Review (4) Scandal! (2) Sex (12) Society (47) Technology (22) Television (4) Theory (27) Travel (1) Trends (25) Upcoming Releases (12) Web (12) WTF? (28) |