‘Booth babes’ told to cover up at E3...

Remove all ads!

From the article:

Damn, thongs were aplenty but I didn't know nudity or partial nudity was a problem in case of live women there.

Ban on provocative conduct is all right. If we can have freedom from religion, why shouldn't we have freedom from obscene sexual provocation?

A little? If the woman with exposed midriff wasn't warned, then what kind of cleavage did the warned one have to wear? A little? WTF?

I can imagine that some got carried by the atmosphere and the hormones in the air and slutted it up on a supply meets demand instinct.

I hate that stuff. A nurse is a respectable profession and hasn't everyone depend on one or five of them at least a couple of times in his life? It's so demeaning to use the nurse outfit on a slutty model promoting a game with her sagging charms.

And then there will be the talk of men treating women as objects, degrading them etc. WTF? Some women clearly choose to be objects and can't stop the itching until they show enough or get enough groping or lustful comments.

From the opening post:

Why?

No, that's not true. There are as many middle-aged women as teeanage boys playing games. And while teenagers have hormone imbalance problems, most men develop past that stage.

The fact that sex sells doesn't mean one should sell it or that it's the only normal way and everything else is stupid.

And I'm straight and slutty half-naked women don't make me want to get the game they are promoting. In fact, they put me off and I'll think long and hard before getting that game.

Sorry to break it to you but reproduction isn't the central point of human existence. And that someone doesn't like obscene lewd imagery doesn't mean he doesn't like sex or has hormonal problems.

I'm a healthy straight male and I don't have any fear or hatred for sex, but I don't see it as a dominating force in my life. In fact, I find such presumptions low and insulting. I'm not a horny animal, I'm a human.

And I may be a nerd because of going for months on more coffee cups than hours of sleep, using English more than my own language while living in my country, doing something on the computer most of my free time etc, but I'm not a nerd because of not suffering from sex addiction.

@Ilmater's Suffering:

There are other publishers and producers and press people at the convention, not just the sluttier ones. Also, live women have more impact than pixels on the screen and occupy a far more central position at the booth than in the game.

@Morgoth:

Yeah. I don't need animilastic copulation vibes all around me when I just feel like some game playing.

Yeah, exactly.

@Wordplay:

The US have more prudishness than Europe, but they also have more freedom in such matters. We may have more topless beaches, but they have more Mardi Gras and Spring Break kind of "fun". Also, I don't think the central geopraphical point of the sexual revolution was located in Europe. Mind you also where most porn comes from and where the biggest market for it is.

Actually, I would be surprised.

Besides, I think here in Europe we're less caring if skin goes but we aren't so much into whips, chains, tight leather, clothes two sizes too small, feathers, slutty boots etc.

@Ilmater's Suffering:

What about the majority of people who are not sex addicts? Oh, but sometimes I doubt normal people are in majority nowadays. Many people seem to have a sex addiction and a constant need to prove how straight or masculine (male) or uninhibited, unprudish and not stuck up (female) they are, even if deep inside they know it's not like they really are, but for display. All the proving and underlining of it suggests some kind of inferiority complex or insecurity. The more a man talks about how he likes boobies, the more suspicious it is and leading to the question if he doesn't really like something else, which he's trying to hide and make up for.

@Saber:

I don't care so long as they don't stick it in my face, but I'd rather see games than sluttery at a game convention. They could make a separate version for sex addicts, like Ero3 Expo or something.

@Felinoid:

Read my comments again. Would you really like your girlfriend or wife to pose for and with other guys dressed like that? Or your sister or mother or daughter? In most cases, it's not much more than you on the street, but it's not like it's a respectable profession or something, looking like that for cash. The previous E3 was way worse.

@Harbourboy:

There's nothing wrong with girls being attractive, with girls asking guys out or even proposing, if one has such ideas. There isn't anything wrong with looking good at work, either. But there is something fundemantally degrading in making oneself into an object. Many women protest about men regarding and treating women as toys and what else is the whole booth babe thing promoting? Some women discover a way of earning money not requiring so much hard work or education or skill, so they use their bodies to make money. And is that kind of thing going to teach the male race respect for women? Come on. It's not like it's stealing my sleep or something, but there is a problem and I think it's quite important, after all. IMHO it's lack of respect for women and seeing them as inferior to men which is the reason why we have so much domestic violence and sex abuse. As I said, seeing a girl slut it up for money isn't really the best way to learn such respect. Each instance of slutty behaviour contributes to respect issues, resulting in the long run in abuse, inferior treatment and all that.

And no, this doesn't mean it would be better if they did it for free.

@Tal:

Yeah, exactly.

@Ilmater's Suffering:

Read what I wrote above in Harbs's direction for exploitive. There is a link between some girls using their butts or breasts instead of hands or minds for a living, and girls who later on get abused -- whether sexually or not, because all the sluttery contributes to the image of women as inferior to men. Come on, is it really so easy to see a half naked woman parading before nerds for a game promo as your equal?

There's hardly anything more natural than the human body. But there's a difference between the body itself (think nudity in art and I don't mean artistic porn) and selective display bringing attention to certain parts (genitals, breasts) or their reproductive or sexual functions. In case of booth babes, it takes a hypocrite to say it's only about skin. We aren't, after all, talking about girls in shorts and t-shirts. We're talking about clothes which don't show skin so much as throw the wearer's sexuality in your face. You don't get anything near to the E3 (booth babe) vibe from high-fashion underwear shows, even if more of the body is shown and habitually some stuff is transparent or missing.

So, once again, please let us use correct terms: it's not about skin or covering up, it's about the rampant display of aggressive and cheap sexuality.

Exactly. And booth babes are examples of both. It is demeaning both to them and the viewers (as well as spouses, boyfriends/girlriends, children/parents etc), and exploitative. Some are simply looking good or natural, but some are selling themselves like items.

You are fully correct and I fully agree with you a la lettre. But what you are trying to say between the verses is that what booth babes and their publishers do is not a problem but only how people see them. That's misleading because publishers and booth babes aren't merely showing human body; they are aiming for a certain impression and actively trying to achieve it, as well as capitalise on it. That's a whole different thing from wearing or not wearing something. One booth can be more slutty than a whole nude art museum put together.

@Chandos:

Come on, how many rubber corpses do you see at booths? Or blood or entrails hanging down the ceiling or whatever. Violence isn't as blatant there as sex is. Also, it's not like I would say getting off on mindless slaughter and gore is a good and moral thing. In fact, I often wonder why people want to roleplay some very ugly kinds of evil characters.

@Nakia:

Yeah, exactly.

Exactly. And my exact problem with it.

I hate to see that and it's my biggest problem with such events, with porn and stuff. Skin, oh my, who cares, it's the objectification what counts and "they consent" or "they wanted to do it" or "they are being paid for it" is no excuse.

@Morgoth:

Yeah.

@Aikanaro:

Yeah, agreed.

@Ara:

Full agreement there.

 

True. In fact, I think there was a similar topic posted on these forums right around this time last year, about the booth babes at the E3 Expo 2005.

I would like to think that one very simple rule should be used to determine if the clothing is acceptable or not. If what the booth babe is wearing is legal to walk down Main Street with, it should also be legal at the expo. However, if she's wearing something that would get her a citation for indecent exposure (or the like) then it should not be allowed at the Expo.

Seems logical enough to me at least. While I admit that some of these booth babes are very scantily clad, they aren't wearing any less than you'd see at a beach. If the Expo is being conducted in a city that doesn't have any laws on the books regarding women walking around in bikinis, then I see no reason why they couldn't have women walking around in bikinis.

 

I agree with you Adelth, but the argument will come up that women at beaches aren't trying to sell products, whereas these women are dressing like that in order for men to want to buy the game.

 

Damn Chev, tell us how you really feel... but please be more specific next time .

E3 is a business convention. Although there are many times where blatant sexuality is at such conventions it is ALWAYS unprofessional. So long as the conventions are amateurish the gaming community will be thought of as bunch of immature pseudo-teenagers.

Unfortunately, this means the business side of the gaming industry is not taken as seriously as other (more mature) industries -- we see that in the financial problems of many gaming companies; where those companies have good products but they cannot find an investor to back them.

In the long run the immature image the booth babes bring to the community hurt the gamers.

 

Yep, I remember Chev posting a link sometime last year, complete with photos.

 

I see your point, but based on everything that Chev has stated above, I do not think he agrees with women dressing in this manner simply on the basis of it provoking male libido. I do not think that the marketing aspect of it is his only (or even main) point of his arguement. Of course there aren't any laws on the books preventing women from provoking male libido (in fact it is done deliberately all over the U.S. in nightclubs, every weekend) or using sex to sell a product. That's why I felt a very sensible suggestion was to enforce what was decent or not with existing laws already on the books.

 

Yes, I would be supportive of my mother or sister dressing like that. It's their body and their choice (though my mother's body isn't exactly built for that kind of clothing). Daughter would be a natural no-no just as a protective father, and anyone who says otherwise is simply deluding themselves. Girlfriend or wife dressing like that at E3 would likely just get me turned on. (A gamer girl? Hell yeah!)

But as I said before, no nudity. Past that, it's only suggestive clothing. Finding that as "making someone into an object" is a problem of your thinking, not the clothing. I'm not going to worry about what some sex-starved teen (or a prude on the other extreme) thinks of the clothing the girl is wearing. So long as she is comfortable wearing it, that's all that matters, and we have no right to judge her choice.

 

I'm not going to return fire directly Chev as I don't want to bog this thread down with an utterly futile argument where neither side will ever yield to the otherside's point of view.

However I do believe that controlling women's bodies to control men's sexuality is not the way to deal with sexuality. Repressing the woman's body only increases the sexuality stored in her flesh.

A constant exposure to such as this only leads to a decrease of sexuality stored within a woman's body. Look at the Amazon, women there are topless, but it doesn't excite excessive urges within the male populous. We adpat to excessive stimili and begin to filter it out. Increased exposure to secondary sexual characteristics only decreases our responses to them.

 

They're models for crying out loud. Nobody is being exploited. They do this regulary, they have a choice to do it, they're getting paid to do it.

Incorrect. There are 'not' many middle-aged women who play games. They are a minority in the gaming industry. It is an industry where males are the primary consumer and so marketing targets them.

Nobody is saying it's the only normal way. Hell it's not the only way they're selling games. If anything it's just an 'on-the-side' attention seeker. However using the female body is a strong marketing tool especially when your general demographic are young males (in this case there will be more males aged 18-25 than any other group at the expo). Frankly it's not the main advertisement, it's a minor thing at the expo and not worth getting worked up about.

So you're turned off by the marketing and not the game itself? If that is the case you probably wouldn't even be elligible for E3. The people attending are mostly the 'higher society' of gamers. They are the reviewers, designers, and often investors of video games. They take being there seriously and a few strumpets wearing game-themed outfits are not going to sway their opinion, they're just entertainment between demos.

In the end this is alot of hot air about nothing. You have to be 18+ to go to the expo. Sex is used to sell things, get over it. It's not even the primary marketing tool. The girls are NOT being exploited. Opinions are NOT being swayed and only a few people are actually offended by this and if they are they can simply piss off and let the majority enjoy the show. Take your hyper-sensitive bullsh*t somewhere else.

I'm a man and I like titties.

 

The general lack of clothing I can handle. As has already been said, these are models who have chosen the career of their own volition. For all the women I know who find the idea degrading I know equally as many who love the attention they receive from dressing provocatively. This is a choice that is best left to the individual, I feel.

However, on my own part I disapprove on the grounds that the idea is so transparent and contrived. I adore women but that doesnt mean that as soon as I see one I become a drooling, compliant idiot. It just seems so ridiculous that simply placing a scantily clad lady next to any product, be it cars, electronics or computer games should be enough to make men part with their hard earned cash. The most annoying factor, of course, is that it works for an awful lot of people and so the advertising industry spams the same technique everywhere.

Well, its not going away and there are far worse things in the world, but come on now. Really.

 

As long as she doesn't get angry when you stare, I'm fine. If it makes you uncomfortable to have men look at your breasts, then don't show them. I love hypocrites...

Thats what happens to all AoDA arguments

 

We better raid all the car expos and tool expos and the like as well.

@Chev, you are funny

 

F*** Yeah!

Chev, I mean you no disrespect, but reading your overly looooong post, I couldn't help but think, "Spoken like a guy who's not getting any."

I am in no way a "sex addict"...at this point, I'm lucky if my fiancé and I have the time for any of that once a week! But IMO your morals (probably blinded and twisted by religion) are making you...as Abomination put it, "hyper-sensitive."

Oh, and answer a quick question that you asked:

If my fiancé wanted to dress like that, and bring in a second income, then more power to her! Same goes for my sister. She has 4 kids, and isn't much to look at, but if she wanted to do it, I'd support her. As for my mom, she's 65, kind of overweight, and her religion decides her every move…so I doubt she would ever consider it...but if she did, I would support it (I just wouldn't be anywhere nearby to see it). And as for my daughter, when I have one...once she's 18, she can do anything she wants. I would support her even if I didn't fully agree with what she's doing. It's their lives, you can't force them to do what *your* morals say they should.

But this is turning in to a discussion about how religion rules people lives…so I’ll just shut up now.

 

Already done one long post, so now will try to do without quotes where possible. Shout if you feel summarised wrong.

@Aldeth: I generally agree with the idea of following the general indecent exposure laws, but the organiser of E3 has the right to set up additional rules and dress code. For example, in Poland, it's not technically illegal for a woman to walk around topless in the city centre but it's not done and no one would consider it wrong for security guards to refuse entry on the grounds of less incomplete outfit. Also, there's a difference between just the issue of how much skin you show and the sexual charge of your clothes. A normal swimsuit tends to show more than what booth babes put on display this year and yet it's far less slutty (not at all, mostly). The difference is that women on beaches intend to lie in the sun and/or play and/or swim, not to give guys a hard time.

@T2Bruno: The shortest I can put it is that it's degrading and unaesthetical. Also, I agree with what you say about it being improfessional and ultimately harming the industry.

@Aldeth: My argument is based on the skin area being shown only to a limited extent. My problem is with it reeking of cheap and aggressive sexuality in a way degrading to women and that to hype up the hype surrounding a game in order to sell the product, that is practically for cash. It's a lighter form of prostitution. And no, I'm not talking about booth babes in skinny jeans and sweaters, obviously, or with moderate cleavage. And I'm not talking about the ones impersonating game characters where the state of undress is somehow realistic game-wise (don't know... like that Raquel Welch film). I'm talking about those who slut it up because they know no measure (intricacies of fashion are lost on those women, they only know to undress and strut the stuff), or those who are more in the authentic sex worker direction (sexy nurse outfits etc).

@Felinoid: Her choice or not doesn't say if you think it's good. On the other hand, your fatherly part explains all, anyway. As for girlfriend, you say you would be turned on, but what with the knowledge she's not dressing like that for you but for the general public and for a product promo, which is ultimately for her paycheck, anyway?

Your second part sounds oh so lovely and liberal and freedom & others respecting, but you get lost on one thing: people have no right to force their rampant sexuality on unwilling subjects. Going to a gamecon is not volunteering for a softcore show. By saying that one has no right to judge her clothing morally so long as she's wearing any, and saying it's all in one's head, you are making one basic mistake: you don't realise how arbitrary your own clothing rule is. The demand to wear no slutty outfits (no whorish tattered/punctured/torn/two-size-too-small/bunny-styled outfits) is no more arbitrary than the demand to wear clothing. Besides, some of the thongs and whips and chains stuff is more disturbing than actual nudity. Also, by putting it all down the eye of the beholder, you are making yet another mistake, one of ommission: you are purposely neglecting the intent of the publishers (or their ad guys) and boothbabes. They are choosing specific outfits with a specific purpose in mind. If you wear sexually charged clothing in order to obtain a sexual reaction, you can't say it's not your fault and not your doing because it's just how people subjectively see it. You wanted it like that, so cut the bull****.

@Ilmater's Suffering: Have you actually read the part where I said it wasn't about skin or body? There has been a couple of such parts by now. It's about the rampant sexual charge of the slutty outfits on their own and a selection of what and how to show, rather than showing the body itself. As Nakia said, it's not about glorification of the body, so?

Besides, those women aren't expressing themselves; they are using sex vibes to get cash. If men were to get used to their almost bare butts and breasts, they would come up with something new. If there were no way to excite men sexually by static display only, they would slut it up with motion, movements, behaviour.

Don't turn it into a poor repressed buttock or breast issue, which it is not. It's about shoving one's sexuality down people's throats and also using those people's sexuality to play on and earn cash that way. All those slutty models at game business expos are like brothel ads in a townhall: legal if the thing itself is legal, but something's obviously wrong with them being there.

@Abomination: Exploitation is not something you can waive with a signature. Getting a paycheck doesn't unobjectify those women. The paycheck is in fact much of the objectifying factor. As for calling them models, compare them and fashion lingerie shows and tell me what's sluttier. Those girls aren't showing off game outfits or characters. They are there to titillate men and lure them to the game with butt and boob shaking.

Har har. How authoritative. Do yourself a favour and find out what you're talking about before you start being a guru. Here.

I will grant you one thing, though: booth babes aren't worth the fuss. But it's not like they will just go if you ignore them because that's how things normally work, but not how they work when money is at play. Personally, I think it's a product of the discrepancy between the urges and laws in the American society, as well as the great divide between the omnipresent prudeness and the omnipresent debauchery. That is you have plenty of both and they conflict at every step, producing such results as those booth babes pushing all limits.

Wow! And who has just said the thing didn't objectify women? First you said those women weren't being objectified, now you are calling them "just entertainment between demos" and referring to them collectively as "a few strumpets". Pwned!

What's the relation? How does being turned off by marketing affect elligibility? There's no link there and you seem to be getting lost a bit. I would grant a fair review but I would never invest in that kind of marketing, design it or something. I wouldn't buy the game for my own leisure time if I saw that kind of advertising because it would suggest the game itself contains such material and I have better things to do with my time (such as doing the SP news, for instance) than finding out. I already have more games than time to play. Tasteless boobs and butts on the cover or adorning a (p)review are deterrents and warning signs that the game is lacking in the non-sexual aspects.

As an example or five, if you were to put a female BG2 NPC on a re-edition cover as she were in the game, I would probably like it. Same perhaps for Aribeth, but I'd roll my eyes at the size of her cleavage. The infamous NWN nymph was a big no-no, but I knew I could trust BioWare on making still a good game (even if the unrealistic degree of every muscle on the Valsharess' body moving all the time even when she was just standing there and breathing or talking was hilarious and quite tacky). If I hand't known the developer and enjoyed the previous games, I would have probably decided against buying if I had any samples of that thrown at me before.

In short, there's a difference between presenting a nice girl and alluding to sexual activities or simply trying to abuse the hormonal imbalance of male teenagers by swarming them with zeppelins. They are suuuurely going to respect women and treat them as equals after that.

As you call them, strumpets and entertainment between demos.

Fallacy alert: if it goes as far as producing a large amount of heated discussion, as well as sanctions (hefty fines) by the E3 overseers, then it's obvious not just few people are offended.

Why? Should I affirm whatever happens as good, right and just? What kind of philosophy is that?

Eh?

@Will:

Agreed. The whole thing is degrading to men, as well, and it's sad that it works.

@Saber:

Now, I'm impressed! I'm always rejoiced to see someone bring that argument up. It's like the woman who happily jumps out of her bra on the beach but normally acts like a martyred virgin when she catches someone trying to steal a dive.

@Kitrax:

You think correctly because I'm not a guy who measures self-respect with the number of times getting laid per week.

No disrespect, either, but I can't agree with that statement, Kitrax, but I refuse to peek into your bedroom and drag stuff out of there.

I'm not as sensitive as you think because I'm quite sure that if we were to compare the effect a booth babe has on you and on me, my turn on levels would be much lower and I'm sure it would be much easier for me to look the other way than for you. I'm not blinded or twisted because blinded to what? To the fact that random sex is oh so bliss and that being bombarded with sex at every step is great, that drooling at other women when one has a life partner is great stuff and that sex is merchandise like any other? Spare me that. Twisted... what a funny way to put it. Twisted is what makes drives control people instead of people controlling drives, use one's own body and sexuality as a moneymaker or enjoying that kind of view.

And you call me twisted.

I can't force my morals on them and tell them to cover up but they can force their sexuality on me, how logical.

Some people prefer to be ruled by their drives and some people prefer to be ruled by religion. Talking about religion blinding people is a universal excuse to give up any work on one's character or any attempt at self-control.

 

Ditto.

Ditto.

Ditto. Strip clubs exist for that.

We're worlds apart, then. The idea of my gf doing that (even though I have no gf) truly wouldn't please me. Still, if she wanted die-hard to do it, fine, but I'd be outta there in a split-second.

If only it would be that simple...

 

So? I know she's not actually giving anything to them; she's still all mine. Some nerd's fantasies about my girl don't interest me so long as he keeps his hands off of her, regardless of what she's wearing. Again, the problem only exists in the minds of others, and I don't care about them, just us.

If you have a good expectation that it's going to be like this, then yes you are volunteering. If it's important enough to you not to see this stuff that you won't go, that's your choice. But if you choose to go even knowing that you will likely be exposed to this stuff, then you have volunteered, no question. You can b*tch about it all you want, but ultimately it was your choice and you chose to go. And I have no respect for anyone who would complain afterwards that it was "shoved in your face", when you were the one who knowingly brought your face in there to begin with.

EDIT: Now don't get me wrong, you've got every right to lobby them to stop the practice. But ultimately the decision on that should be theirs, and I can't imagine they'd stop so long as it's working on the majority.

Arbitrary? I don't think so. The line is clearly established in public decency laws about nudity; you can call their choice arbitrary, but mine had a basis. (Given that this isn't a public forum by the law, but I'm just drawing the same line a little further into gatherings.) Besides, I want at least some views to myself. Though if I follow your logic on it being arbitrary, we might as well draw the line at all-concealing burkhas. And I can imagine any number of complaints about that.

I may not have directly addressed it, but I thought I made it clear that I don't give a sh*t what other people think, so long as the girl is comfortable. That means the people looking, or the people who gave her those clothes to put on in the first place. It just doesn't matter. If you want to put a tag on it, feel free. If the nerds want to admire her, well...I know how they feel. If the guy who asked her to wear those clothes is doing it precisely to exploit her good looks, I say he knows a good idea when he sees it (since it usually works). Don't expect me to care what they think of her wearing those clothes, because I won't.

[ May 13, 2006, 03:46: Message edited by: Felinoid ]

 

And that sexual charge all stems from how we view the body. Since sexuality is inherently physical, it is impossible to remove body from sexuality. So called slutty outfits stem from the way we view the body; Nakia's point about male libido stems from our overly repressed view of sexuality.

Clothing or fashion is a surface issue, it's like trying to explain logic with language games. Any issue with sexuality needs to be reduced to it's most base level before it can be tackled. Clothing is merely an aspect of the the body's sexuality, clothing on it's own is has NO sexuality, it's an issue of how we view the body.

Any issues relating to the manifestation of sexuality can casually be reduced to primary and secondary sexual characteristics of the particular sex being dealt with. Clothing, only being able to "represent" a woman's secondary sexual characteristics can be reduced down to actual secondary sexual characteristic. Clothing is merely a crude token identifier for the human body.

Now off I go before I miss anymore of Dr. Who.

 

I really did not want to waste much time on this thread because it is such a non-issue (except for the sex police) but, I've never been to a booth, so I've no idea if they have any rubber corpses or not. The inescapable fact is that the games on the screens at these events are loaded with mindless violence. For many, that is the big attraction. So for anyone to moralize (and I'm not directing this at you personally, Chev) regarding video/computer games is laughable. It reminds me of those congressmen pandering to all those who feel that computer games are too violent for their "little Bobbies." It's kinda like those who say that "sex leads to dancing," or is it dancing leads to sex? Somehow I just can't remember which it is.

[ May 13, 2006, 05:55: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

But when people are going to look at the new games, at what point would it be a detriment to the product to have all the attention on the breasts of the booth babe?

Exactly. If I could get in, I'd like to see the demo for the upcoming Civ IV expansion, not naked women.

If anything, companies should want people drooling over the product...

But that's discussed in other threads...

Game related costumes would not be much of a problem (as long as they are tasteful), but women in scanty bikinis is the problem. If it's a blatant showing off of a woman's body for no reason other than attention, then this could reveal a deficiency in the gaming industry itself...

 

My wife was unoffended by the half naked women. She was offended by the fact that the industry still ignores the fact that 40% of gamers are women. That half-naked-women thing tends to turn that (rather sizeable) demographic off somewhat. My wife is primarily offended because she sees ignoring a substantial portion of your clientele as bad business. 40% of gamers are women, yet the industry still acts like all the people buying and playing their games are men.