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

Remove all ads!

I basically agree with Aldeth. What I don't like about the "boothbabe", at least the extreme ones, is that it is used in a professional public or semi=public setting and enforces the idea of women as primarily sex-objects.

The use of models, male or female, to advertise the game is fine with me. But IMO it should relate to the game in some way.

 

Hmm... chances are I was a tad bit grumpy. Basically, the matter is that all standards of anything, as well as all opinions, hold a certain degree of judgement based on controversial criteria, including such subjective ones as personal taste.

Admittedly, my chief problem with the E3 flesh show is an aesthetical one. Some of those women look like cows in what they wear, including face expressions. That's what happens when someone thinks, "I'm too sexy," when he isn't really. I have enough decency to hide my rounding parts when they round too much and generally I have issues with exhibitionism.

However, it's a bit hard to explain the concept to some people and on many it's completely lost. Decency is something more graspable, I believe.

Nah, let's not worship the law like that. Indecent exposure laws aren't godsends, they are recorded votes.

Besides, I would take offence if you said Greek art were more indecent than succubus/rabbit/naughty nurse outfits. My father's house is full of nude sculptures and some paintings, most of which he's made himself, and I don't have a single problem with that, while I have a problem with some of my brother's posters in which privates are mostly covered.

Nudity isn't so universal -- let's take the topless issue or even nudism in many countries or states in the USA. It differs from place to place.

Personally, I have no problem whatsoever with nudists if they really feel like it (i.e. aren't voeyuerist pervs who pretend to be nudists) and try to stick to their own company, and I don't really care what people wear on private property, even if it's my property (so long as they were invited, of course ). And I'm far from a burkha type myself, as well. I mostly just roll eyes at underdressed people. What I do have a problem with is sexualised showing of body, and that's a whole different matter.

Err?

Noooo, Fel, no starving a little. Just having to use parts of body other than butt or boobs to bring sweet cash home to spend on new clothes and smellies. It's that simple.

Menial work is no worse than mental work and heavens above sex work. I'd rather my daughter were a floor mopper than a luxurious call girl or even G-string and dime sized bikini top model.

I have the right to complain when I have a problem with something and I don't even need any kind of legitimatisation for my complaining because complaining is not about that. Complaining is about the fact that stuff sucks and I hate that.

Everyone is supposed to have a reason to be there. And those who do it for work could always resign their work, following your logic. For some people, gaming hobbies are more important than work and for many they are nearly as important. For a whole damn lot they are simply very important. The need to go there and see games is greater than the disgust at booth flesh show, but the latter is still there and E3 would be better without it.

And since we are talking about a new rule to cover up (which was being criticised), I totally don't get your point about doing something.

There is some sense in that but it's not so simple in most cases. You don't support kids' poor manners or slutty clothes by sending your own kids to a non-nun-owned school.

@Aldeth:

If someone were to convince me that topless or nude sunbathing in case of women is for comfort only and that there is no intent whatsoever of being sexy involved, and that there are not going to be any complaints about someone looking (by which I don't mean coming over and staring), and that a reaction of universal arousal in men won't happen (i.e. men being flooded with sexual impulses and some idiots taking it out on the silent girls who don't strut stuff, as is the case with rape so often), and that there won't be a massive discomfort among the people no matter the gender (as a rule, if 50.0...1% people had a problem with it, it would be a minority position), I would have no problem with it. (In case of possible sick reaction of men, I wouldn't have a problem with the thing per se but wouldn't accept said reaction as a fair trade-off; in case of people having a problem, I would have a problem with the majority's sensitivities being offended, not with the lack of clothing on some people per se.) So you could more easily convince me to okay nude sunbathing than slutty outfits.

It questions the person's morality and puts one in such a position. It doesn't invalidate the person's positive qualities or the negative qualities of people who don't dress that way, but the problem still exists. Needless to say, my children are not going to dress like that.

Yeah, there is a difference, but it's a difference in quantity more than quality. It's just the beginning of the road. First they will look sexy, then they will start uncovering more and more, then there will be topless posing, nude posing, sexual poses, actual sexual activities aka porn acting or prostitution. It just starts somewhere.

1. Booth babe is a respectable profession if it's being a casually dressed hostess or a non-sexual model. If she's being paid for showing stuff or wearing sexualised garments, then it's not respectable.

2. It's not really such a whole lot apart. See above.

@Nakia: Agreed on principle but what it if models are wearing some perverted outfits like naughty nurse or sexy succubus or whatever, and especially strutting stuff around? IMHO it's a whole lot different from being a model like those who display work of fashion creators.

 

Hmmm... This may be where we are in disagreement. For me, I do not see that as a necessary (or even particularly common) progression. Theoretically, someone who works as a boothbabe may use that as the first step down the road to stripping, porn movies, or prostitution. Alternatively, they may use it as a stepping stone into a modeling career. Or maybe they are doing it because they are in college and need money between now and when they can start with their actual career. (Incidently a large number of strippers are college students - it's a very good source of income that allows them to afford to go to school.)

Like it or not, the same err... attributes that are deemed good for a boothbabe are the same attributes that are deemed good for being a model. I do not think it is by sheer happenstance that all Victoria's Secret models are young, attractive, and in peak physical condition - the exact same qualities that are considered ideal for working as a boothbabe. And while the purpose of the advertising for Victoria's Secret is to sell their product (and thus sex is not the primary motivating factor) it can't possibly be argued that the women in these commercials aren't selected on the basis of how sexy they look when scantily clad.

I will allow that being a boothbabe isn't as respectable a job as something that helps people directly, such as doctor, policeman, fireman or even indirectly, as is the case with engineers and scientists. However, since I don't think that the majority of boothbabes go onto careers of porn films and prostitution, I think it is a leap to say that boothbabes are on the same low rung of the career ladder as porn stars and prostitutes.

 

Nudity requires a human body. Sculptures, paintings, posters, ... that's just stone or paper & ink. Movies are digital information. The way they're put together to simulate a naked body doesn't make them nudity in my book. Porn, possibly (depending on whether it's artistic or crude), but not nudity.

Not getting my point? It's still a matter of sacrifice. Do the menial work for less money, or the other work for more money. Is it worth getting less? (I'd say yes, but mostly because I prefer actually doing something to standing around looking pretty.)

And we're back to being a hypocrite if you still go. Round and round and round...

I don't see quitting work as an option. At the very least not as easy an option as not going when you don't have to go. Though people going there for work might petition their boss to send someone else (and I can only imagine there would be any number of volunteers for that, slutty dressing or no), if they are forced under the threat of financial reprisal (i.e. firing), I don't consider that a choice. At the very least, it makes a decent excuse. Because I like the games, OTOH, is a BS excuse. If you like the games enough to put up with the dress code, then it's not really that bad, is it?

Hey, I fully support anyone wanting to petition for higher standards of decency, even as I may not support the actual petition. I may think it's much ado about nothing, but I don't really care if people change it or not. Any ruling that is made I will abide by. Laws, in a democracy, are the will of the people. (Well, they're supposed to be, and on levels this far away from government they actually can be.)

Okay, again we've got a problem between supporting and affirming. If you've got another option, then yes you are affirming it. Send them to the nun school instead if it really matters that much. Otherwise, quit yer b****in'.

 

All things considered you're going there to watch games where violence is the primary factor. You'll see people stabbed with swords, people exploded, people torn limb from limb, even if it's just an animation. How is a scantily clad woman 'worse' than acts of violence?

If you're going to get all moral I'd suggest you attack the very foundations of the convention itself. Marketing mostly based on the depiction and reward for artificial violence. To me it just seems, well, very short sighted to take an affort to a scantily clad girl when there's so much violence surrounding her.

 

My issue with the whole booth babe thing is not aboyut nudity or modesty or any other such thing; it is about the fact that those women are treated as nothing more than accessories. In short.... nudity = good, objectification = bad.

 

Nicely said, Arabwel.

 

Especially when these so called models advertising the games know next to nothing ABOUT the game in the first place...

Bah, they're nothing more than showpieces in the show, plain and simple. Now, I don't mean to be offensive here, but if I was there at E3 to seriously check out some games, they'd just annoy me...

 

On that note, how many people discussing their opinions in this thread actually attend gaming conventions like E3? I have never been to a single one. So really, as far as I'm concerned, why would I care what they do? Whether there are boothbabes or not, I'm never going to see them anyway.

 

On a slightly different note:

E3 was for the trade. Getting reviewers and distributors interested in the various games. However publicity doesn't hurt. The boothbabe controversy creates publicity. People are indirectly made aware of new games. Interest in the games just might be generated. Ergo: boothbabe controversy = money.

 

You know... I kind of agree with Chev.
Lord.

I don't think the issue here is the fact that the men at the expo are exploiting the scantily clad women. I think the issue is that the scantily clad women are exploiting their sexuality. Then you look at the pictures of the scantily clad women and realize that you could go to your local amusement park (or even your regular park) and see the same amount of flesh. So *really* the issue becomes-why is it okay for a woman to dress up like a tramp? Or even-why do some women feel the need to dress up like tramps? Because I'll tell you this right now, it's certainly not comfortable. And I'd be willing to bet that the majority of women who put on a pair of short shorts and a midriff shirt are either A) trying to get men to look at them or B) trying to get men to sleep with them. And *that* I find offensive. Because the prevalent part of a women's life should not be centered around getting attention from men. She may be smart and she may be sweet and she may be a feminist who insists that showing off her sexuality is freeing, but it's a swift kick into degrading when a woman uses her body for attention. Because it's not important! It may make her feel good, but it sullies the good name of other women who want to be respected for the things they do well, and not the nice genes that were passed on to them.
What did parents of the last 10~20 years do to make their girls think that it's okay to be 'respected' for being a pretty face? As a society we say one thing-feminism is about equal rights!- and do another-you shouldn't wear that dress, it makes you look fat.
It's not the expo booth babes that gets me riled up-it's that attitude that shades every part of society right now. We've taught our young girls that it's okay to flaunt, to use your sexuality, that there's nothing better than to get noticed by a guy. We've become the pimp.
(Wait a minute... *I'm* a young girl. When the hell did I start acting like an old woman?)

*sigh*.. I'm forced to agree with this, as it happens in this house as well. Apparently some people have this mystical thing called spare time that they use to have sex in....

 

@Aldeth:

I don't have issues with booth babes who work as hostesses. If they overdo the cleavage or belly or whatever, it will still be for attraction, but heh, no stripper-kind-of thing. But those who are paid specifically to have low bellies, high hems and big cleavages, they aren't oh so far away from sex industry.

Sometimes they wear less clothing than boothbabes or more sheer. But they aren't trying to give men a hard time, they are presenting the outfits.

@Nakia: On nudity we tend to agree. But what about sexualised displays, prostitution-inspired/accessibility-advertising and other high-vibey stuff?

@DJ: Yeah, yeah, yeah. I fully agree.

 

I think we agree on that.

 

I hate to bring this up, but what about the waitresses at Hooters? If you aren't aware (I do not think Hooters is an international restaurant), Hooters is a restaurant that specializes in chicken wings. They sell things like ribs, burgers, and fries too, but chicken wings are what they're known for. All of the waitresses at Hooters wear low-cut tank tops, and shorts that are just long enough to cover their backsides. And it's required attire to work there.

You see for me, those who aren't far from the sex industry are the kind of people who say they aren't, but in reality they are. Like escort services. (I'm almost positive we've discussed this before.) There are escort services that are basically prostitution rings. They get around having prostitution charges brought up against them because they say the clients are paying for the escort. Anything that happens following the escort is between two consenting adults, and they aren't being charge additional money for sex. However, on the websites of these escort services, they give some pretty explicit descriptions of what the escorts are willing to do. So if you're paying $500 per hour for an escort, and you know that the escort will have sex with you, then you're basically paying for sex. These women will say under no uncertain terms that they aren't prostitutes, and don't work in the sex industry, but what else could you possibly classify them as?

 

My wife's swimsuit is far skimpier than anything the ladies wore at E3. I would like to assure everyone that my wife (a mother of 2) is not in the sex trade and has no intention of ever entering the sex trade. The idea that being a booth babe is a gateway to entering the sex trade is one of the slipperiest slopes I've ever seen. It's like calling coffee a gateway to cocaine.

 

I recall this issue the last time it came up -- I replied thinking we were talking about booths in strip joints where a guy can go in with a girl and get a lap dance. I'm a bit better informed this time around.

I think that the industry should police itself and decide what it is and isn't willing to tolerate. When a new car is launched or some other new product is launched, 'booth babe' women are part of the deal, though I doubt that Saturn would permit a fully naked woman at a car show. Carmakers would draw a line. I think that the game-makers should draw their line where they want it drawn, and as long as the entry is for only those over 18, the rest of the world should mind their own business.