eroslove
@mahne876: I feel like you're challenging me to a drinking game! Take a shot every time you write "gender studies." I'd be too hammered to even respond to this post at this rate! But let me attempt the old college try.
I addressed in my first post on this thread that there's a difference between designing sexy characters and designing sexually objectified characters. Any character can be sexy to any given person. Yes, muscular, shirtless men are generally considered to be sexy! No sane person would deny this. Also, interestingly enough, slender, fit ladies in skin-tight catsuits: also sexy! This game has many of them! Your mistake seems to be reducing "sexiness" to an equation determined by square inches of fabric over square inches of revealed skin. Solve for se-X, am I right?!
Shirtless men, while sexy, are not reducible in their designs to their shirtless-ness. They are not objectified; there is a character beyond their well-built pecs. In other words, Jax is not a male bimbo. People objected to the female character designs in MK9 because they weren't just sexy. In fact, they were seen to be in excess of sexiness, almost to the point of grotesque parody. It wasn't everyone's cup of tea! I could spend the next thirty minutes typing why some female characters in MK9 were sexually objectified, but really, would it really convince you of anything? You seem to have an automatic, knee-jerk hostile reaction to the very mention of the words "sexual objectification," attributing your resistance to *takes shot* "gender studies" (oh the horror!). But whether or not you believe the term has merit, it's not, by any means, some radical extremist concept. It's a fairly basic idea, with applications in both human psychology, philosophy, advertising, artistic design, and yes, "gender studies." *pours more whiskey* Maybe you could check out the wikipedia page for it! And by "you," I mean the people reading this who are not mahne876, because I'm pretty sure he's a little too afraid of a niche academic subfield to do his own research on the topic without parroting misapplied Orwellian paranoia every chance he gets!
Sadly, these willful misunderstandings proliferate when deep anxiety and fear of change take root. It's just...it's so sad to see people marshal so much anger and resistance over something like..."gender studies..." *finishes the bottle* to the point where they need to write the words "gender studies" *burps* so many times in a single post just to desperately convince themselves, through repetition, that an adjunct professor in Twin Falls writing a book on feminist literary interpretations of Henry Miller, getting paid $30,000 a year to teach four survey classes, is part of a secret international cabal to reduce Sonya's bust size in Mortal Kombat 11. But, you know, GENDER STUDIES!
"Sexual objectification is the act of treating a person as a mere object of sexual desire. Objectification more broadly means treating a person as a commodity or an object without regard to their personality or dignity."
This means treating a person as an object.
In advertising, modeling, beauty contests, etc; There is no such thing as "objectification" because a woman FREELY exercises her OPTION to work as a model, in an advertisement, in a beauty contest, to work with her image, etc. She is exercising a human right that is her FREEDOM or LIBERTY to work and do what she likes to do. From the first moment, she exercises something that is inherent in his quality as a human person that is her human rights, this is absolutely the opposite of being an "object".
In fact, those who are really objectifying women on this point are feminists, who want to censure and prohibit women from working as a model, in advertising, in a beauty contest, working with their image, etc. And prevent the free exercise of her OPTION AND LIBERTY. For example, by preventing women from working as advertising products or as we have already seen, removing the competition from Miss America swimsuits. All this only because feminists want to impose their ideology and morals on others.
And in fact, you could not "objectify" for example Jade MK because Jade is not a human person, has no human rights, is a fictional character, literally is an object. In things like this, "gender studies" show their farce and sensationalism to drive their narrative.
Feminists and their "gender studies" are just that, an IDEOLOGY masquerading as a science to give it false academic legitimacy.
This farce is developed in the faculties of social sciences, which have been instrumentalized for this political activism. The faculties of social sciences are often not being serious in the "investigations" or "studies" that they claim to have, but these studies are only aimed at continuing to promote a political narrative with little intellectual rigor.
Famous is the "Sokal affair", scandal that undressed the little intellectual rigor that the social science faculties can have in their "studies"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
Another, more recent, is the one that brings to light all the corruption and political activism that the social science faculties are doing precisely in "gender studies" and "identity politics".
This is like ROSETTA STONE that comes to explain all this gangrene in the social climate.
https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVk9a5Jcd1k
Journalists and other professionals study at the university and are indoctrinated by these same activist teachers with all of them "studies", after that it jumps to politicians and the mass media and ends up contaminating everything and thus this unpleasant situation has contaminated video games and in this precise moment to MK.
