Boycott Atlus

[rpgdemon]

Originally Posted by Drownball-Champ

[EDIT] Forgot to touch on this part: I agree against the cover. Stuff like that doesn't belong on cover art. I'm fine with it being in-game, to a point (that "outfit" is ridiculous), but children shouldn't be able to see that when looking at the game section. It is unacceptable, but extends beyond Atlus.

Wat. The problem with the cover isn't teh childrens, but what they are trying to accomplish by using it.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Drownball-Champ

[EDIT] Forgot to touch on this part: I agree against the cover. Stuff like that doesn't belong on cover art. I'm fine with it being in-game, to a point (that "outfit" is ridiculous), but children shouldn't be able to see that when looking at the game section. It is unacceptable, but extends beyond Atlus.

Well on the box art they hiked up her thong, tweaked the nipple plates, and covered her tits with the game's title, so it's totally acceptable for public viewing.

[Drownball-Champ]

Originally Posted by rpgdemon

Wat. The problem with the cover isn't teh childrens, but what they are trying to accomplish by using it.

I have no problem with the objectifying of women, especially when you look at the cover of Maxim, Cosmo, or other magazines and realize they allow it to happen. Children shouldn't be taught that this is OK.

[EDIT ] Oops. Contradicted myself. Meant that it should be changed, but they're allowing it to themselves so why should I complain for them. Not that I have no problem with it.

[rpgdemon]

Yes, I too believe that we should maintain a culture where we shame women into wearing more clothing. The only times they should be naked is when WE want to look at them.

[Terex4]

rage and fear are justified in human nature specially when a person is being attacked for simply being, But on that same note i would say that THAT which you just posted, while valid in it's own accord, is not really what was being talked so far, it's almost ( ->almost<- ) another discussion.

That post was not as clear as I intended it to be. After what? Seven hours of arguing and it reaching 5:30am, I was tired and not at my best so I decided to let the stories of others do the talking for me. Hell, its not hard to see the progression of my posts where I go from being informative to lobbing links in your general direction. The point was to demonstrate what sort of impact the perpetuation of these stereotypes has.

Now, I've been keeping my posts to transgender issues because:

-I'm at my strongest when discussing it
-Trans issues are typically on the backburner especially where women's rights and gay rights are concerned. Considering there are multiple instances of transphobia involved, I, for one, would love to see more of a focus on it.

So the message sent in that scene of the game is that innocent guys combing the beach for babes were approached by a disgusting, predatory woman-who's-not-really-a-woman.

That alone is enough for me to boycott ATLUS specifically.

I like to think that I'm a very patient person. I make a habit of letting a lot of things roll off my back and just try to live my life peacefully. That said, this thread is evidence for me that I don't have the patience nor the ability to lead the charge on something like this and it has only strengthened my resolve to stand behind Liz on it. I support the message and boycott for the reasons above and the reasons others have listed. If it turns out to be fruitless, so be it, we tried. For my sake, this is my closing argument. I have plenty of other things that I'm beating my head against the wall over so I'll leave it to others to make more compelling arguments than I have.

[A Zarkin' Frood]

Originally Posted by Drownball-Champ

I have no problem with the objectifying of women.

Did you just say that?

Also: Others doing it too clearly makes it so much more okay.

[Drownball-Champ]

Originally Posted by A Zarkin' Frood

Did you just say that?

Also: Others doing it too clearly makes it so much more okay.

I messed up on that message. The edit was posted simultaneously with your message.

Where did I say others doing it makes OK? I said women allowing it implies they have no problem with it.

[Drownball-Champ]

Originally Posted by rpgdemon

Yes, I too believe that we should maintain a culture where we shame women into wearing more clothing. The only times they should be naked is when WE want to look at them.

OH I SEE! If a cartoon image of a scantidly-clad is drawn by a woman then it's objectifying, but when a woman voluntarily does it for a magazine cover it is A-OK?

Double standard. Nice.

I'll touch on your "belittling" post too. Yes, get used to it. Even when you achieve "equality" you will still be the butt of jokes. Ask ANY group. Is it right? Eh. Will it change? Never, we have freedom of speech, darling.

[rpgdemon]

You made your post complaining that the woman ought to cover up, but the objectifying wasn't a problem. I responded.

[shiney]

This is an argument that will go nowhere, because some women don't mind being objectified, and some women feel strongly opposed to being objectified. Women wouldn't appear nearly nude on magazine covers, or fully nude inside some, or be more or less blatantly used as sex objects in a multitude of advertising venues if those women themselves were opposed to it. Conversely, the very appearance of those women make other women feel uncomfortable as their gender shouldn't be reduced to a simple sexual image or object.

You will find two camps regarding this issue, strictly within the female gender, never minding the shades of grey, and to argue it in this arena is going to end up going nowhere. We as a culture celebrate sexuality while simultaneously repressing it, and there are arguments both for and against it. Making blanket statements about a nuanced issue is only going to end up looking foolish.

Edit: so quit sniping at each other you two.