Sexiness vs Sexual Objectification - A Rebuttal or How the Mary Sue loves double standards.

The Mary Sue wrote an article that no one actually read. Moreso, none of the site's opponents. When the masses were ranting and raving about the sites double standards, not once did anyone mention the sites tireless pursuit for damage control.

Dudes have shirts off, so they objectify him just as we do R-Mika. 

How do I know this? Because, every person I saw arguing against the article had very weak retorts. Even when the site presented the perfect opportunity to be properly dunked on, they continued a rather tireless and mediocre rebuttal.

The truth is, they aren't objectifying him… at least, they think they aren't.

You see, the Mary Sue thinks you're stupid. Which could be true; maybe you are stupid. The thing is, you don't know what sexual objectification is. This is why, even when you vehemently disagree with a website, you must exercise both critical thinking and critical reading. As in, you should read between the lines. In this particular case, you probably should have kept reading.

I get it. It's so mind numbing to go through a feminist paper or opinion piece. It's difficult to avoid going for a gun to end your misery quicker. But, it's that kind of thinking that makes you look stupid. When you're tirelessly arguing with SJWs with the impression you “dunked on them,” let it be known that it was you for which the dunking was had.

But, it's social media and you can't really get the context in under 140 characters.

So, what argument is Mary Sue trying to field here? The difference between Sexiness and Sexual Objectification. Because, the Mary Sue is trying to educate you on why you're so stupid.

"Writing about sexual objectification in fighting games poses a unique problem, because every character in every fighting game is objectified by design. Not sexually objectified, per se – but treated as an interchangeable object."

This is true. Fighting games (as are games in general) are a collection of objects. Much more so, in this particular genre. Because ultimately, the character is an aesthetic for most of those who play these game competitively. It's mainly about the mechanics.

The backstory, the bio, and even the design is an illusion. Video game characters aren't real. You already know this, or at least I think you should.

Ryu, R-Mika, Chun-li. They aren't real.

May God have mercy on our souls.

So if they aren't real, what's the point in making this distinction? It's all about that illusion of realness—a thing that doesn't really matter, but people who believe in Media Effects Theory really think it does.

The short part of this rebuttal is that ultimately none of this matters. They aren't real people. Why are we even having this argument? I could end it at here, but then this post would be kind of pointless. I mean, I could have just tweeted that.

So, what is Sexual Objectification? It is based on how characters are treated. Basically, an invisible hand reduces some characters, mostly women, into objects, usually outside the character's control. This takes on the role of the camera as well as how audiences treat them.

Many, SJWs and the Mary Sue, would like you to think that this includes what characters wear. But that presents the argument that none of the characters dress themselves, and that they are at the whim of the artists.

They are. Which would also again, mean that the men are objectified because, again, they are designed by the artist!

So, I won't be arguing things that are obvious for both characters, but are based on the characters gender and design instead.

The camera focuses on R. Mika's butt, which she slaps with agency. This is suppose to indicate that while she likes slapping her ass, the camera focuses on that. Even though it's a fighting game tournament and, as a showy type wrestler, she probably demanded the camera focus on her butt when she slapped it. Though given the censorship, let's assume they vetoed that.

You see where I'm going with this. It's asinine to argue a difference between Sexiness and Sexual Objectification because it's based on what-if factors not normally established in the game itself. No one knows for sure if R. Mika is comfortable being a sexy character or not, that a camera exists, or that she dresses herself. No one knows this!

This theory is based on an assumption of the audience outside the video game—how they react to it. Which again, makes it more asinine. Not everyone will look at this game, or any game like this, the same way.

So, what does the audience think? That's what this article seems to be ultimately about. It's based on not only changing the way characters look or portray themselves, but how you as the audience interpret it. The Mary Sue presents this argument by cherry picking impressions of Hot Ryu. (Probably from the writer's own social media feed.)

People talking about how they think of Hot Ryu as this gentle boyfriend who likes to take them out to "mountain hikes" or whatever wholesome, sappy fan fiction crud.

I mean, this isn't very accurate. Actually, the man roams the world in the same outfit, without bathing, barefooted, and gets into fistfights with random strangers. Not exactly boyfriend material.

Unless you're into that sort of thing.

And so, what is presented as the counter to this argument: audience impresssions of R. Mika. If you went by youtube comments of her introduction, the most common opinions there is, people are much more interested in doing a lot of butt slapping with Mika. If you get my drift.

They want to have sex with her.

Now see, one can argue this is the same for Ryu, and they'd more than likely be right (ignoring asexual people or those who just wanna cuddle.)

Assumptions. That's the word of today. Every last one of these impressions are based on things that are never actually presented in the game. Fan interpretation.

Why should it matter then? It doesn't. The Mary Sue wants you to think they have chosen the right way to fond over fictional characters, but actually they are making excuses. Worst, they want you to think they same way they do.

Because, what they are arguing is that it's wrong to be sexually attracted to someone, in what I'd call an animalistic manner. Think I'm joking? One of the links in the article is a rebuttal to why Hot Ryu harms men. 

The argument is that fetishizing the body is wrong all around. You're not just wrong if you fetishize R. Mika, but you are wrong for only seeing Hot Ryu as a mountain of rippling toned muscles and a rubbable beard.

Your thoughts are unclean. These characters are people not objects! It's a argument that buggers me to no end.

Don't tell me I can't lust after my favorite characters.

There's some science to this I might write more about in another blog post. But as an abridged understanding to this discussion, it's a comparison of female sexuality vs male sexuality.

If you want to do your own research, look up the difference in Yaoi/Yuri between male and female creators. While this doesn't apply to everyone, it certainly applies to most writers and artists.

The basic argument here is that if you look at a character and your first thought is how many sexual positions you can imagine with them, you're what's wrong with the world.

If you think the sexual objectification argument is about gender, you would be at least half wrong. Because, the only gendered argument is that there's more women being treated like this in some games than men. But, what it actually means is that, equal opportunity fan service or sexual objectification is the wrong option.

Because, it'll still offend someone.

Bouncing banana hammocks will not please those who will whine about bouncing melons.

The ironic part is how hypocritical the article itself is. One only has to look at mainstream impressions of a little known anime called “Free!” to smell the horse shit. People totally watched that to care about the characters emotions, and not to stare are half naked teenage boys in a swimclub.

And again, one must understand that this isn't a bad thing. You are not a deeply disturbed individual if you want to nuzzle your face between a character's breasts (or Link's thighs.) The Mary Sue wants a world in which people must treat characters the way The Mary Sue want them treated.

The mainstream media who shouts about objectification would like you to think they are out for your best interests when they create mandates for how certain characters are to be portrayed. In actuality, they just want to control how you think and feel about these characters.

But, you know, I'm probably just going through assumptions here.

So, my point is Sexual Objectification is a buzzword used to demonize audiences preferences and make you feel bad for your own desires.

Honestly, that's not very sex positive.

It's that Sonic time of year ago.

It's that time again, everyone. Sega's started dropping hints about a new Sonic game, and so, the yearly cycle commences once more.

Not This Cycle

A cycle in which more cynical minds in our community descend en mass to proclaim how this game will just be another disappointment. Upon its release many will then proclaim that, "It's kind of decent," before a year passes and they state that there has never been one "good" Sonic game with only a vague understanding of what they mean by good.

In Sonic Generations' case, replace decent with "9/10, the cycle is broken —Game Trailers" before people returned to returning to that old incoherent cycle once more. And there were some youtubers who thought they took courses in Sonic 101 who said that Sonic Generations was actually not very good at all and Sonic still has never been good.

Because no one can pontificate what a "good" Sonic game actually is.

 Because it's actually quite impossible for Sega to recapture that magic they created in the Genesis days and even those games weren't perfect. Most certainly only two (three if you don't count Sonic 3 & Knuckles as two halves) of those games have aged particularly well. Because for every Sonic 3 & Knuckles, there were overrated gems like Sonic CD and Sonic Spinball, whose novelty relies in a time travel gimmick in the former's perspective and  nostalgia in the latter. It was an interesting experiment, and I do appreciate that, but I still view it as overrated.

If you stack the top original Genesis games next to the modern games, their superiority is obvious. Only problem is, any beloved retro video game franchise is better then the modern Sonic titles. No one says Sonic Generations is better then The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past. No one would even imply that Mario Galaxy 2 is nothing to the perfection that is Sonic Colors.

Of course, my argument is based under the assumption that, what many value as a good Sonic game in the wider fandom is any game rated among or better than the original Sonic games on the Genesis. Back then, the release of a new Sonic game was something people looked forward to. At one time, Sonic was bigger then Mickey Mouse.

  

He was a Macy's Parade balloon. The first video game character too. First and last, unfortunately.

No  one is looking for a decent or even pretty good Sonic game. Hell, I doubt they will be satisfied with an excellent one. They want a Sonic game that's perfect in every aspect, and they want that opinion echoed from every major gaming website.

Even Sonic Generations isn't good enough.

I've come to the conclusion that an announcement for a new Sonic game doesn't matter at all anymore. And I suppose that goes double when the worst Sonic game in years was the last game released. Keep in mind wasn't developed by the original creators, but no one gives a shit about that. They don't think Sonic was ever good.

The only comfort my cynical mind has is that this new game will be developed by Sonic Team themselves, it's been about three years since their last game and  that can only mean, it could be either a decent or great title. After all, the worst Sonic games were always rushed. A fully cooked Sonic game would always be at least decent, which some find really terrible for some reason.

Decent means a company has no other place to go but up, provided they can stop reinventing the wheel and stick to refining the formula. And I'm pretty sure using the same engine for four games counts, right?

I sometimes wonder, what if in some alternate universe, the Genesis formula was the only formula. What if Sonic 06 played like the Genesis games, but nothing was changed. The  gameplay stayed exactly the same, but the story telling, redesigns, addition of characters, all of the elements of modern Sonic were still there. Would that make them better games?

I'm reminded of a franchise that did that exact thing: Megaman. From the first game all the way to ZX, do you think those games stayed consistently good in public opinion? If that franchise was beloved as it was in it's heyday, we would have seen a third game to turn ZX into a trilogy instead of new sequels to the original Megaman. Keep in mind all these games take place in the same canon.

If you went by mainstream opinion, Megaman and X were all there ever was. Personally, I loved both the Zero and ZX series of games and I'd love to see these franchises return. Unfortunately, we can't always have nice things.

So even if Sonic never changed, we'd still be in the same predicament; just look at Sonic The Hedgehog 4. Sure, the physics for the first episode were heavily criticized, but even after they were fixed in the second episode, that did not make that game better or even remotely close to the quality of the Genesis trilogy. It was more of the same, but that was one of the major issues people had with those games. 

Otherwise, it plays great, but it's boring and dull; fans were expecting more. You can't even make Sonic good by stripping away the story bloat and secondary characters. 

So maybe it's possible, that Sonic was never that good, but was simply good enough. Which is better then decent and probably not perfect. That childhood magic we had back in the '90s can't be recreated. 

So, can we at least get a Sonic game as good as Generations, or is that not good enough? 

***

Appendum: So, Sonic Boom exists and it's very likely it will continue to exist in the future. Sega has stated that Classic (Legacy?) Sonic will still exist. It's best to think of Boom as the Battle Network of the Sonic Franchise—a spin-off with it's own ideas and, apparently, developers.

While we will probably see a new game where Sonic isn't wearing a scarf and covered in sport's tape, one would have to learn to live with his lanky alternate universe step-brother.

Personally, I really hope this game drops and people can shut up about assuming Boom!Sonic is some reboot and we can treat it exactly what it is. An offshoot of the modern franchise. I just hope they fix the tone issues to better differentiate both franchises.