Kommentar: ‚As a handicapped person I think this text is very violent and offensive towards people whose bodies don’t represent the „norm“. Therefore I unfortunately have to send my note in protest –
With its highly aggressive tone it also brutalizes a stance that video game characters should (really always?) serve as role models and therefore a certain morally chauvinistic purpose. Again, I consider myself a feminist too, and have no understanding at all why female characters should be kept under a strict dress code. I think its just political irresponsibility, disguised as sexnegative „feminism“, which demands that.
It’s like someone is calling me out on stop playing football games, because in real life I can’t walk either… „Don’t look at women because you’re not and they won’t look at you.“
I don’t know how this attitude even can have anything to do with egalitarian rights, emancipation or any female cause regarding females as a social group, one half of mankind. On the contrary I consider this a clear violation of human rights, no „human rights“ argument itself, when authors, bloggers, activists – male or not – again and again formulate a stand I can only call highly patriarchal in itself, suppressing any free form of sexuality among adults. And their target, in the end really object, is always the female body – its unwant depiction in the media. Never the male one. And therefore people like Chris Rooke oder Anjin Anhut are also the ones who are, in the end, „objectifying“ women.
They don’t want female bodies to get exposed, perhaps just like their Victorian forefathers didn’t. They want to cover them up, to force others to live their viewpoints. Female or not.
And this is sexism to the extreme. It just reacts xenophobic to different sexualities, it excludes and by that, it even suggests in others a sexual interest in characters under the age of consent, when it comes to younger female bodies.
More than that, it is sexually discriminating to say the least, because it doesn’t articulate anything about its own sexuality. It even doesn’t talk about sex but only social relations, like gender.
Yet a title like „Senran Kagura“ is first and foremost NOT a video game, not about gender, but sexual expression. Its creators may think that in this day and age of sexnegative oppression, especially in the west, that they have to cover its sexual purpose behind „humour“, but nevertheless that’s simply the case. They obviously do know that social norms and terrorizing tendencies against fantasies, again especially in the west, do them no favour.
Yet I criticise puritanistic and often also very violent (then in a physical way), prudish American „family“ stories like „Gone Home“, „The Last of Us“ or „The Walking Dead“ far from any unwant „sexualization“ of characters, too, but I certainly won’t say that there’s no place for them in this world. My advice: just don’t play a Japanese game like „Senran Kagura“ if you can’t handle its sexual relative freedom and leave us others alone, if you don’t understand us.
„Senran Kagura“ is no majority program, it should not advocate your „decency“ and acceptable behaviour, its made for minorities and there’s no need to „damage“ those. Yet the question about the violent content remains.
No it cannot be ruled out. If the author considers erotic video games sexist, at least those which doesn’t represent his social norms, then what about all that violence out there?
And at least two questions asked within this context are very heteronormative in its tendencies. The question is not why there are no explicit images of males in gaming, but why video games are only produced with a heterosexual background in mind (!).
The author even might think that’s ok, because in the end he doesn’t say anything about sexuality in games at all. Yet there are also a few games, like „Hakuoki“ even in the west, which are sexually targeted at a a female heterosexual audience. And yet that female sexuality is not considered „problematic“ because female sexuality doesn’t, if heterosexual or not, fall under unwant body politics. It’s not a question of gender but sex. Like their is gay „pornography“ but hardly any „pornographic“ material targeted at a female audience.
Most images regarding „lesbian porn“ are still male heterosexual fantasies and because male sexuality, heterosexual or not, often does work that way. The blogger may not understand this, he doesn’t tell me anything about his own sexuality, obviously thinks that this is his private affair, and therefore discriminates others who disagree. Sexual racism, sexism, of its worst kind -‚
Replik vom 2. März: ‚Nintendo has a long history in degrading women to „damsels in distress“ or emphasizing capitalism by the use of aggressive and greedy male figures like Wario, or just look at all those gold coins in „New Super Mario Bros. 2“. No, saying that video games are no place to talk about patriarchy or capitalism is like saying video games are an inferior art form. It’s not ridiculous but very necessary.
Yet I’m certainly in a minority here. And now, why exactly are therefore you, as a majority holder, Nintendo of Europe, Future Press, or only this magazine, oppressing myself?
You cannot „oversexualize“ something that already IS sexual. You obviously do not even recognize that.
It’s like demanding not to „overyellow“ a yellow flower when the flower was already yellow in its natural state. You can criticise the game for its aesthetics, but what you do is criticising the sexuality in others, socially excluding people with the „rights“ of a majority violating those of minorities.
I don’t like the fact that Japanese erotica is very often using a fetish with big-breasted women as sometimes the only differentiator to children, yet I couldn’t discriminate those portrayals in good conscience either. I may not like their looks, but there are also big-breasted women really living in this world!
And what you do is embracing solely „normality“. Are „normal“ portrays of „normal“ people.
Whatever gender you may recognize in them, if only biological differences: you say that normally people are not sexual, and that’s true. At least for most people.
Yet it’s also you that want certain body representations, and want other types not. It’s you that want to dictate how people should be portrayed or dressed in media, like video games.
And by that, it’s also you that describes therefore certain patriarchal stances in covering up female bodies, reducing uncovered women to „ownership“, at least a privilege, of their male (perhaps only female too) partners, but certainly not in a public interest if they are willing to expose themselves or creatives are willing to draw, paint or render such portrayals. It’s you that want to get rid of sexuality in the public space, at least regarding unwant images of female body types. And if you are really emphasizing on biological differences, it makes everything even more worse.
Because then, there also even exists a biological public that should not get used to seeing images they are „normally“ not allowed to see. Like watching female bodies uncovered.
Not on themselves or others, because therefore you also dictate how they should look at themselves. You dictate their gender because a „male“ who wants to look at women cannot be a „female“ and so on.
Not long ago, here in Central Europe handicapped persons like myself were killed because of such biologistic notions. So here is also political and historical responsibility there, and you should question yourself: about what „people“, what „majorities“, are you talking here exactly?‘