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

Remove all ads!

Does your wife look like Lara Croft ?

 

Hotter.

 

@Chev Oh no this is going to turn into a tit-for-tat type argument

So if there were billboards of CG animated women who were scantily clad it would be fine because they're already objects? Chev, not every girl who signs up to be a model is some moronic bimbo who doesn't realise what she's getting into. They are not being exploited because frankly they're getting paid a fair amount of money for very, VERY easy work (stand there and look pretty). If anyone is being exploited it's the people who are influenced by them to purchase the game in question.

 

I'm not sure about how true this statement is. To me, and many others, morality =/= ethics. From an ethical perspective, there is nothing unethical about choosing to be objectified. Many people who support gay marriage, for example, feel that gay marriage is immoral. They differ not in their moral compasses but in their views on the very purpose of law.....believing that laws exist not to enforce moral values but to protect individual liberties. From a legal perspective, morality has nothing to do with it.

 

@DotW:

I don't believe a guy has the right to tell his woman how to dress, but on the other hand, no guy has any obligation to put up with whatever his woman puts on -- no matter what militant feminists and other scary lefties say.

For me, it's like: sexualised clothing (intent to arouse/primary arousing effect, not just area covered/uncovered) => sexual trolling => major immaturity and issues with sexuality => inability to contract valid marriage per Canon 1095 => not my type for obvious reasons.

Guys can look in many ways and some will be offensive, while some not. Some men will already offend when eyeing a woman in a burkha, some will be able to look at a naked one without offending her (think doctors, husbands, maybe family members in some societies/families). I can imagine that sometimes a woman wants to be seen from distance and not be a subject of close dives, of course. But in situations like that one, she doesn't really go there to be pretty; she goes there to be sexy, sexually arousing and luring -- to a material product. That's prostitution in a milder form. Same as putting on a big cleavage blouse for shopping to get better prices, or something tight/revealing for a job interview (no matter it's so horribly unprofessional).

@Felinoid:

And what makes the great difference between their physically touching her and her showing them around her butt and breasts in some "sexy" leather or plastic or dented cloth or whatever, followed by their fantasising? After all, it's all in your brain...

That's something I'm not convinced you fully believe in. It sounds more like an excuse to bring you peace of mind and allow you to be as tolerant as you want at peace. Thing is, what about the problem that exists in her mind, that is her believing it's okay to tease other guys? Especially for money.

Thing is, E3 is for game industry folks, publishers, developers, investors, journalists, not for strumpets. The former are necessary there, the latter aren't.

No, their decision shouldn't be more important than the E3 owners/overseers'.

That's because you can't change the law every time someone comes up with some new sexually enticing outfit. Nudity is simple and doesn't normally change, besides, people normally have to be nude to engage in any public sexual activities, so ban nudity and you have the former problem solved. If you were to ban sexually provocative or otherwise lewd clothing, you'd have to define standards for it, which takes more work.

That's basically the definition of arbitrary.

Personally, I would have less of a problem with my woman going to a doctor than working at some booths (not talking about all booth babes on principle, just those who overdo it).

That's the immortal argument of relativists: we have to draw a line somewhere for practical reasons. That line is in fact completely arbitrary and even more so than the all-encompassing standards absolutists employ. Oh paradox.

@Ilmater's Suffering:

Why do you keep clinging to the body (no pun intended)? ****-me boots have nothing to do with how we view the body. It's about what outfits produce what results in the viewer's mind, as well as what processes go on between the displayer and the viewer.

Nakia's point doesn't stem from any repression. Her point is an observation: booth babes dress like they do in order to appeal to the male libido, and there's no dodging this unless we're going to lie. Let's not be hypocrites: those girls either know their job is to give guys a little hard time or they are stupid (which is also a likely possibility).

Let me once again repeat: those women are not fighting for de-taboo-isation of their bodies. It's not about bodies, it's about sex. And it's not like sexuality ultimately comes down to how much body and in what way you see, no. The sexual image of body is only a function of sexuality and sexuality is the base of it. Sexuality uses mental pictures, but those can be created without any visual material -- think porn novels or cyber sex.

Or like the whole thing with treating sexuality as a function of body images instead of the other way round. And I'm playing no language games here. I'm just using arguments and calling them language games to avoid dealing with them is easy but solves nothing in the long run.

Agreed.

Agreed.

So? According to what you seem to be saying between the verses, in order to solve the booth babe sexual imagery problem, we need to change our view of what's sexual and what's not. But don't you think that they would stop employing what we ruled no more sexual and would instead employ what's still considered sexual? They would have no incentive still to do it if it suddenly stopped being sexual. And to cut them off, you would have to make everything asexual and then they would do nothing. Besides, constant adjusting and ruling their new sexy fashions asexual would be quite lame.

I think I've made it clear to anyone willing to read that I don't have a problem with clothing or lack thereof per se. Or with bodies per se. I have a problem with using sexual imagery of profit, with turning oneself into a sex object, a toy, for monetary gain or employing such objects for monetary gain. You may ignore this all you will, but don't expect me to take that seriously.

@Chandos: I have a problem with mindless violence as well, rest assured.

@Drew: Yeah, I have a problem with ignoring the female game players -- or even game makers, for that matter, because women are on the dev side, as well, not only just players.

@Abomination:

No. Only a determined, identified and specific victim is absent.

Let's use some more proper terms. Models show clothes someone would normally wear. Those women don't model clothes, they are there to be sexually enticing. Add sometimes sexualised movements etc. It's not really a model. It's still not a stripper or erotic dancer, but already not really a normal model.

They want to be exploited and are paid for it. This means that they aren't being cheated out of anything, but not that they aren't being exploited. Note: it's possible to exploit oneself without external help, as well.

Hell, yeah. And I have a problem with that. And I have a problem with the assumption that it just goes like that. Away with your strumpets, show me the game, I say.

Rock starts provide entertainment, they aren't it. Strumpets not so much provide entertainment as are it, as you said. Also, using the sexual functions of one's own and the viewers' bodies isn't really the same as making use of a real talent like singing or knowledge or manual abilities or whatever.

Blah, to tease a guy and then say, "you have no chance, buddy" is as low as putting out. According to some people even lower. And no, a strumpet is not just an attractive lady. For example, my mother, sister, girlfriend, all are attractive ladies but none is a strumpet.

Yeah, that's only fair. But the intense presence of loose sexuality and similar marketing tactics rings a bell and suggests the game may not itself be as good as the advertising is (supposed to be) alluring.

Yeah, but you're talking like it's either a few or the majority. There can also be some or a lot, for instance. I suppose many people have a problem with at least some of what goes on there. I don't have a problem with the booth babe concept per se or with many if not most of them (I assume the sluttier ones get more pics, so it looks like there are more of them than in reality). I only really have a problem with the overly sexualised or almost naked ones.

It depends. Laws are generally an expression of the will of the subject of sovereignty, be it a king or republic government or the people. In case of modern democracies, it's nominally the people, but the de facto sovereign for the purpose of making laws are the representatives, so laws are an expression of the will of the representatives. In case of penal laws, it's what people's elected representatives consider deserving of punishment. It's linked with morality but it's not really the same. Not everything which is legal is good or moral.

If a company advertises games using sex and sex makes games sell, sex will gradually expand from advertising into games, at least so far as desired ratings allow. The means if sexual advertising works, you will truly see more games because of the company having more money for game making, but you will also see tacky sexuality in games themselves.

@Drew:

Morality and ethics aren't the same and the law is not the same as either, either, so one can't be sure that something moral or ethical will be legal, that something immoral or unethical will be illegal, or that something legal will be moral or ethical, or that something illegal will be immoral or unethical*.

* To some extent, it's generally unethical and possibly even immoral to break the laws of the community without a good basis, according to some philosophies, for example the Christian one.

Besides, according to some people laws exist both to protect morals and invidual liberties or for neither of those purposes per se. In some views, laws exist to bring order, peace and certainty. In other views, laws exist to make justice, be it by supporting the collective feelings or by furthering invidual liberties.

In case of booth babes, it will offend many people's morality, but also some people's sense of ethics. Sometimes both, sometimes none. Some people claim it's ethical when it only affects people who consent, but I say it's not so simple because consent doesn't remove responsibility for damage done, people don't have the right to self-mutilate in any way, and sex for cash doesn't affect only the buyer and seller, it's a social thing.

 

Chev, how can sex not deal with the body? Itsn't the body inherently necessary for sex, sexuality and anything having to do with procreation? Even the imagination falls back to the physical form.

The problem stems from how much flesh they (women/humans) reveal which clearly has to do with their body and more so, how their body should relate within the context of society.

And Nakia's point has everything to do with the body. You cannot escape dealing with the body sexuality anymore then you can escape atoms when dealing with molecular structure. You cannot merely study "surface" phenomena and hope to grasp the whole issue, it is simply impossible if you ignore what is the cause of what is seen.

Also, the male mind, if you ask just about any psychologist or sociologist, becomes more focused on sex (and not necessarily having it) the more sexually repressed a society is. The dress of Muslim women has everything to do with the idea that if they don't dress the way they do, males won't be able to control themselves around women, which societies everywhere else should illustrate is not true. In the 18th century, women's feet, of all things, where sexually charged because they where not to be seen. Women's breasts (or cleavage if we insist on talking about clothing) are sexually charged because women are forced to cover them because it is assumed that men can't control themselves if women's breasts are exposed, which more primative cultures illustrate is not true. I'm not saying the body is asexual, but isn't sure not as sexual as some like to believe, a great deal of sexuality stems from our social psychology, which in term stems from the idea that sex, at least to some extent, isn't natural in society and therefore what is associated with sex need to be covered in order not to promote a certain level of sexuality within society. Therefore sex, by the nature of social contsruct, becomes repressed and therefore objects that relate to sex become of increasing fanscination.

Blatant exploitantion of flesh comes from repression, simply because of everyone was nude at all times, you couldn't market what is already common place. When we deny the majority of the world what 90% of it's brain is devoted to, it's going to become very obssessive when it sudden;y has excess to some extent of what it desires to have. Base drives only desire to have what isn't satisfied, remove the deprivation and you remove the problem. Sex, to a certain extent, exists on the same level as food, water and shelter.

Bha, I should have read all of Chev's post before ranting, trying to edit out redundancy only makes things more disjointed.

[ May 13, 2006, 18:09: Message edited by: Ilmater's Suffering ]

 

True, but the line does have to be drawn somewhere. And my lady would NOT be comfortable being touched by these pervs.

That's only a problem by your standards, not mine. I don't see anything wrong with using sexuality; everyone has it (to different degrees), and everyone can use it. I also don't care whether you believe me or not.

That's very true. But the fact still exists that the latter are there, and you know it. If you go, you're voluntarily exposing yourself to it, and that was my point. Boycott the practice, sign petitions, whatever. But going there and then b*tching about what you KNEW you would see there seems hypocritical to me (not saying that you're doing that, I know you've not been). That's not saying that I would look down on someone who went there with naive expectations of 'decency', and they have every right to complain. But they only get to do that once.

By "them", I meant everyone involved in the running of E3. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

So? I only use the law as a starting point because it agrees with my own views. Call that arbitrary if you may, but I still think having the legal system agree with it gives it some small basis.

Really? Hmm...

No, I think that one looks much better.

It's only paradox if the pot calling the kettle black is paradox, though both happen to be that color. My opinion is no more arbitrary than yours or anyone else's, and that's all I was trying to say. Your value of 'decency' is just as arbitrary as mine.

 

@Ilmater: I'm not divorcing body from sex. I'm saying that sexual imagery of the body is a function of sexuality, not of the body. So, let's say, having a standing or reclining nude sculpture in the middle of your house is one thing (my decidedly Catholic father, who's an artist has many of those, most of which he's made himself), but wearing shorts two sizes too small or a sexy nurse is something completely different. You won't tell me that sexy nurse outfits or all those succubus/rabbit/whatever-style outfits are about the body. It's about a certain personification of sexual energy, that kind of stuff.

Your mistake is that you're trying to reduce everything to how body is viewed and skipping sexuality altogether.

Agreed on that and many other points. But do finally notice that I'm not talking about using the image of nude human body in advertisement (I don't really have a problem with ads using classical nude art, for instance, and I've drawn nude drawings myself, actually). I have a problem with the reeking perverse sexuality of those nurse/devil/prostitute/whatever outfits and other such crude insinuations. It's not really insinuations anymore, anyway.

It's good you mention the limited nature of the analogy because sex is not quite so basic in the sense that you can live without it and be happy. It's impossible to die from lack of it, as well. It's not even as necessary as shelter. Also, sex is not something a normal person does every day for an extended period of time .

@Felinoid:

But of course. I would be able to ignore strumpets just standing in place and roaming around, but if groping started (such as happens when photo queues form), I would most likely sigh and leave as I leave parties when such things happen.

However, I'm not finished with this quote. I would like to draw your attention to how arbitrarily you choose where to draw the line or even the fact that you choose to draw a line at all. This is to explain to you that you can't possibly escape being arbitrary unless you want to turn into an amoeba.

Your defensive reaction tends to show you care more than you are willing to admit. You want to believe in tolerance on principle but after a certain limit is reached, a defensive reaction takes place.

Not at all. You may as well be tolerating the lesser evil of strumpets being there for the greater good of seeing the game, doing your job as a reviewer, whatever. By the fact that you go out in a city where people get mugged often, you aren't volunteering for being mugged.

Not really. You are adhering to a love it or leave it principle there but it's not the only principle applicable in this case. You may as well want to continue visiting the gamecon but without strumpets being there and thus still go but widely announce your opinion and campaign for the strumpets' removal. Damn, Abomination, thanks for the word!

Yeah.

Arbitrary basically means judgemental and the rest is explanation and examples.

That's what I've been saying since the beginning.

@BTA: Lol, what a funny little strumpet. It's not like she's emanating oh what a load of copulation vibes, but erm... it should be at least a tad bit embarrassing, I guess. No, I'm not really moved, but still, I wouldn't like anyone from my family to parade like that. Also, she's a prime example of how publishers are trying to show as much booth babe flesh as possible and to what extremes they go. No duct tape?

On a positive note, I consider BTA's babe much more decent than one in a nurse or prostitute outfit covering much more of her body. My problem is with the slutty vibes, not with the area of body being shown per se.

 

True, but that means that any opinion at all is arbitrary. And that's just silly.

If I respond to your direct question, re-iterating the point that you don't seem to be getting, you call it defensive. If I don't respond, I'm automatically agreeing with what you said. Either way, you get to convince yourself that I believe what you believe. Making this whole thing pointless.

Well, at the risk of being called defensive again, I'll say it one last time. I don't care what you think about what they do. It doesn't matter. Whether you think they're being 'slutty' or not by using their sexuality, the only thing that matters is what the girl thinks. The only thing I'm "defending" is her right to do what she thinks is right.

Ah, but the difference there is likelyhood vs. certainty. It's only likely that you would be mugged, but it's certain that you will see the women at the gamecons (unless you walk around with your eyes closed). If there were a place where you were absolutely certain you would be mugged if you just walked out your door, you're damn straight I'd call you an idiot for doing so. Call the police, get some protection, arrange to move, whatever. (For analogy to the gamecons, you can petition for 'standards of decency', as I've said before.)

Yes, but you'd be an utter hypocrite if you continued to go, because obviously it isn't that bad if you can deal with it. And I've already advocated "love it or leave it or try to change it". But until it's changed, you've got a choice to make. Is it bad enough that you refuse to go, or is it really not that bad after all?

 

I remember reading in some San Andreas forums lots of people asking for the 'horny-blonde-girl' on the cover of the game. The girl isn't part of the game, is just cover 'art'. When asked the producer of the game, he said that there are a lot of people who will buy the game for just that image...

I really don't like when women are used as advertising board, like the girls on race events holding a sunshade; but then I think, they should like doing that, if not, they shouldn't be there, right? They like to be there, showing off their attributes, selling whatever they sell. So why I worry about it? I guess nobody is forced to be there.

 

To be fair I looked through the Photos. It does seem to me that most were wearing clothes seen on the streets. What I think of that is another topic.

In fact I thought a few of the outfits nicely attractive.

The one BTA linked to is, well, what Tal said.

 

I thought the outfits were fine, too.

 

That's pretty much the purpose of opinion. Besides, not really, that means only that using the, "oh, that's so arbitrary," argument doesn't really bring any constructive effect.

Only if she lives alone in the jungle and let's not forget animal rights.

Or profitable?

Plus, deny it all you will, but you're obviously having a problem with some of that stuff.

Thing is just because you disagree with something someone else likes doing doesn't automatically mean you have to love it or leave it and let him have it his way. That's basically where all the liberal ideas fail: who should concede? At some point, one part of people is too occupied fighting for its right to notice anything else and the other is too busy making concessions even to think about its rights.

If some idiots shout obscenities at you on your way to school or work, will you be a hypocrite for having a problem with it if you can still go to work and in fact do so? The fact you can bear with it doesn't make it immaterial.

I don't get that. Trying to change still falls under having a problem with it before it's changed because you have to have a problem with it or you won't even think about having it changed. Also, going there doesn't automatically mean you affirm whatever goes on in there. You can't sue slutty models for offending your taste, but you have every right to say how their presence affects your feelings about the whole thing.

@Sydax:

Legally, that would be right. But there's always the problem of such things being a part of a bigger trend and there's no denying that women making objects of themselves for money have an effect on men's general view of women and then abuse and other things -- such as johns, abusers, chippendales and whatnot affect women's view of men. For example, if it weren't for willing prostitutes, there would be no prostitution market and no "need" to force unwilling women to do it. And yeah, you'll be right in pointing out that if it weren't for men going to willing prostitutes, there wouldn't be a market for prostitution leading to women being forced to do it, either.

@Nakia:

Yeah. It's better than last year and still, only a minority of those outfits poses a problem. Those are the sexy nurse outfits, the whips and chains kind of thing, tattered underwear, that kind of stuff.

Yes, some are. But there's a difference between those and what some other girls wear.

For example, what BTA's one is wearing is somewhat revealing but it doesn't really look slutty or repulsive (she isn't even sending sexual vibes IMHO). Not like I'd like my kids to dress that way. On the other hand, sexy nurse outfits, bunnies, tattered underwear, flesh sagging out of two sizes too small tops or bottoms, that's slutty and unaesthetical.

 

Okay, so then why'd you do it in the first place?

Again, your opinion. I think otherwise. Let's leave it at that.

And again we come back to "does she have a problem with it". If she thinks it's not right, she probably won't do it. If she thinks it's not right but does it anyway, then she's got issues. Perhaps financial issues that are forcing her into this position, and I'd pity her for that, but again it's how much of a problem does she really have with it? Some people would rather starve and die than do something they consider to be debasing themselves.

And I'm done trying to educate you. You'll obviously think what you want of me no matter what I say, so the entire exercise is pointless.

I addressed that. You can try to change something if you don't like it. But availling yourself of something you don't approve of makes you a hypocrite.

And again we have a difference. Are these people shouting the obscenities at you every single time you pass by? Do you expect them to continue the practice into the forseeable future? Well then change your route to work, dumbass! Or is it not worth the effort? The question remains...

Yes, it does mean you affirm it by your mere prescence. By being there, by putting up with it, you are affirming that it really isn't so bad that you would rather go without. That's the whole idea behind the boycott, for crying out loud! But you're right that people have every right to be hypocrites.

 

How about defending myself from charges of imposing arbitrary restrictions on people's clothing rather than letting them decide on their own without much restraint?

No, I won't. You believe you or I can't enforce our decency standards because it intrudes on other people's liberties. But you believe people can wear what they want, the decision being theirs only. So here is some social restraint and there is none. Thing is, humans are social beings and they don't live on their own, so everyone has to adjust to everyone to a certain extent. This is why decency standards exist. These aren't meant to come from Chev's Wisdom Tome XLVIII, but I'm not alone on having a problem with butt-shaking and wearing sexy nurse outfits at gamecons.

Or will do it for money. Not all people who do something think it's right.

Yeah. If I were female, you would sooner see me starving than wearing a sexy succubus/nurse/army follower outfit. But believe me, it's much more often butt-shaking vs menial work than butt-shaking vs starving.

Hmm? I must have had not enough coffee today...

Not changing the route doesn't validate their shouting by expressing your consent, which it isn't. There might also be no other way, or no good enough way, and they may also follow you. What you get right is that sometimes it's just not worth the effort. For example, it's not like booth babes are stealing my sleep (or more precisely the part of them with the outfits of which I have a problem) or like I would even look at them at E3, let alone think much, but I will gladly take a couple of screen lengths to spoil the fun of anyone thinking it's oh so cool or that restrictions should be lifted, or that slutty boothbabe is a respectable job (no problem with a normal booth babe in normal jeans and normal shirt or formal clothing, or a moderately realistic game costume -- if it's not a sex game, of course ).

You are right in one: that you're making the choice to go there rather than do without. But that doesn't mean you affirm you have no problem with it or agree with everything. Or that you don't think it could be any better. And you never affirm the whole thing per se. By boycotting, you intensify your signals by showing it's so bad you'd rather do without than live with the "perks".

And there's much more hypocrisy in claiming that people in fact secretely like whatever they don't run away from.

 

This is why I never post in the nude

 

You brought it up; I only followed your line of argument. If someone else was calling you arbitrary, you should have addressed that comment to them, not me.

No, you're no alone. And I'm not alone in thinking that there is nothing wrong with it. That is why they are opinions. Personally, I would have no problem at all if the decency standards were non-existant, and though I can't say it with quite as much certainty, I don't think I would have trouble with extreme decency standards so long as I had grown up with them in the society. But the only universal (well, in most countries) standard put into law is no nudity, and that is what I stand by. Past that (i.e. law), decency is opinion only.

On that we agree, if you pay attention to the next sentence you didn't quote.

Menial work -> low pay -> starving a little, maybe? It's still a matter of sacrifice for your ideals. Is menial work better than the other?

Right. It just means that you have no right to complain if you don't even bother.

And that's where you look to change it. Take control. Tell them to shut the hell up. Get them arrested for harassment or just get a restraining order, but do something. In this case you don't have a choice that you have to go to school (by law) or to work (to support yourself), but the situation is again different for the gamecons. Anticipating the next question, yes, I'd have no problem with someone who had to go to a gamecon for work complaining. But the majority choose to go, and that's what I have the problem with.

Ah, I see. You've taken my use of the word hypocrite the wrong way. I didn't mean that they all secretly liked it (though some small percentage likely do); I was using the word as the perception of another. Take Clinton and marijuana, for example. Tried it once (didn't inhale ), never again, and he's a druggie; a hypocrite in his war on drugs. If you go to the gamecon, knowing what it is you will see, you give the impression of okaying it, whether or not you actually feel it. It is supporting the practice, whether or not you intended to. And with that non-verbal (even unintentional) support, you become a hypocrite for speaking out against it.

 

As far as universals go, yes no nudity seems to be the only restriction. However, many, many, local areas have stronger restrictions than that. The most common example is there are far more topless beaches in Europe than you will find in the U.S.

That having been said, I generally agree with Fel's points. As long as you meet general decency standards, there's nothing anyone can do about the way you decide to dress. In the case of women, as long as they cover their breasts and their genitals, they meet that requirement.

But here's the thing I don't get - why do some people have such a problem with this? Dressing slutty does not make one morally bankrupt. And by saying being a boothbabe is not a respectable profession almost seems like you're comparing it to prostitution, but the two are worlds apart. Of course, you may not see it that way. I just feel that shaking your partially bare ass in front of a horny young adult is far different than paid sex in the back of someone's car.