As "discourse," this shit is tired, but man, there are still SO MANY people, and they are out in droves at the moment, who try to defend objectified female characters as "sexual," and frame criticism of them as being against "sexual expression." This remains as absurd as ever.
-
Show this thread
-
90s Lara Croft, for instance, was a lot of things, but "sexual" wasn't really one of them. I mean, think about it: Did she ever express romantic or sexual desires of her own? Only vaguely at most, and this is extremely deliberate:
1 reply 2 retweets 11 likesShow this thread -
If she was shown, say, making out with a dude, it would have made straight male players uncomfortable, both because they themselves don't want to make out with a dude, and because it interferes with the idea of Lara being THEIR fantasy, of her belonging to them in a sense.
1 reply 1 retweet 17 likesShow this thread -
I mean, as recently as 2013 (!!!) there were big concerns about playable female characters being at all romantic or sexual with male NPCs because of how it might make some male players feel! https://www.engadget.com/2013/03/20/publishers-rejected-remember-me-because-of-female-lead/ …pic.twitter.com/eertd4u5zd
1 reply 1 retweet 12 likesShow this thread -
Lara Croft being "sexual" in ways that felt rooted in what she wanted for HERSELF probably only would only have made the character way better and more interesting, but it was with great intention that these traits were avoided.
1 reply 0 retweets 22 likesShow this thread
Generally speaking most of us who advocate for better representations of women in games actually consider sexual identities & desires that serve to complicate & humanize those characters something we want to see a lot MORE of, not less. But sexualized definitely does not = sexual
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.