Katy

Alyxium wrote "...Who came up with 'gaymer'? Maybe its just me but I actually find it kind of insulting. We don't call people 'straighmers' or some such rubbish, do we?..."

Alright, I'll say it. You don't call it "straighmers" because that's the assumption already. Just like there's gay pride days, because the other 364 days a year are straight pride days. And that's why flesh-color bandages match a caucasian skin tone. And why it's "actor" and "female actor", and "mankind" is synomynous with "humankind." And there's "history" and "women's history." Don't dwell on discarding individual examples, because the significance is in the vast number of "generic" categories which come bundled with assumptions.

It's a pervasive pattern that there is a "default" which is generally white, male, heterosexual, able-bodied, and several other categories for which, when you're not the default, you must clarify. So that's why there's a "gaymer" which makes the distinction at least in print.

But that's even more reason to not put up with it - as a minority (and I'm speaking to anyone who felt uncomfortable with the normalizing of violence intermingling with sexual connotations, since we're the minority in this thread), it's all the more important to speak up.

And for that matter, so far, I haven't seen any single person commenting along the lines of "this goes too far, it's unsettling" suggest it be removed from publication, or that Eidos be fined. That's because neither should happen. What's more important is not what a dozen ad execs thought at Eidos, it's what the conversation in the community says, and whether we, as consumers of game advertisements, accept that advertising ploy or draw the line.

That's why the argument that there are so many more offensive ads (while true) is entirely irrelevant - since when is it only worthwhile to discuss the most offensive, the most creative, the highest-earning or that longest-running for anything? Sure there are ads that you can get 95% agreement for them being entirely too offensive, and ones for being entirely unoffensive. But the interesting conversation is the ads that lie in the middle.

And like I said before, the reason this lies in the unacceptable range of the spectrum for me, is that it is (to me and I think to any reasonable person) a message with undertones of sexuality. And it is also a message with violence. Regardless of the context (in this case an assassination game), it becomes a sexual AND violent message.

And for clarification's sake, I'm not arguing that someone could become a rapist or an assailant, or even that they would be OK with women be raped or assaulted. I am saying that it contributes to a culture that ignores sexual violence as a real and persistent problem. it presents sexualized violence in a context meant to be consumed and then forgotten, not discussed and digested as if it were the substance of the book/movie/game.


"And Kate...as a gay man who loves video games, I completely understand where you're coming from. There are some definite double-standards in our industry, but unlike your demographic, I'm definitely in the minority so I just put up with it because I love my games."

Thanks, scooby doo, but we're actually both in minorities: I'm gay, myself. But I'm reacting to this is an activist against violence against women, not so much as a lesbian.

It is not that the overt message is that the game is about sexually-charged violence. But the fact of the matter is that a scantily clad woman in a submissive position is a sexual figure. Then to make it a violent scene, it doesn't matter if that's the intension, but it gains undertones of physical and sexual violence against women.

Any argument along the lines of "Oh, if it was a sexy man who was dead, no one would have a problem with the sex/violence combination." And you're right - a barechested, attractive man doesn't have the same qualitative characteristics as an attractive woman. A man is attractive by being strong and in control, whereas a woman by being slim, pretty and submissive (just look at the body language of advertising and *on average* that's the case). So it *is* significant that it is a sexy woman and not a man because of the double standards of attraction for men and for women.

Whether or not it's the intention, it is yet another drop in the bucket of cases of violence against a sexualized woman. Thus, it contributes to a culture of acceptance of those messages.

Great models! Now I'm going to find out what other famous gay men, lesbians and trans folk skins there are kicking around. The sims may pull me back in once again :)