Writer's Block Daily

@Hellomoto: I completely agree with one tiny asterisk. The line separating a third-rate hack from a first-rate hack vis-a-vis sexualized women is the first-rate hack bothers to create a flimsy and unrealistic Ethical Slut who quotes The Theme Park Version of sex-positive feminist philosophy out-of-context to put into absurd outfits, or less. (I used to be guilty of this; she's still around, with significant Character Development to hopefully avoid this issue.) Still, the general theory is very sound and worth following; I just felt it necessary to add that corner case caveat because it's become a bit of a Pet-Peeve Trope for me.

edited 8th Jun '16 5:56:23 AM by KillerClowns

Re-quoting because pagetopper (pagebottomer?):

To be honest, I'm slightly lost as to what you're saying. What are third-rate and first-rate hacks? I'll guess that third-rate puts female characters in sexualised outfits without even trying to invoke feminism. Either went completely unquestioned, or say "it's got dragons, it's unrealistic, deal with it". Still, glad to hear from others, instead of letting it stew in my mind.

I considered including other things, such as gender equality - I've seen many instances of gender-differentiated outfit concepts where the male = unsexy, female = sexualised dichotomy is very clear. In a real life restaurant, the male waiter was dressed in a suit, while the female waiter was wearing a low-cut dress with a very high leg slit. I couldn't bear to look at her.

I wonder about sexiness that's visible only when the sexy character is not facing you, such as Sexy Backless Outfit and maybe Sideboob. Because to admire her (the sexy character is typically female) sexiness, the admirer must be standing away from her line of sight, not talking to her or such. This could apply both in and out of universe; for the latter, the camera has to choose between showing her face or her sexy back, and typically when there's an opportunity to show her back, it's because she's not doing anything, being passive, becoming an object even for just a moment. It's a thought that recently popped into my mind, and may not be as much of the problem as I think. I voice it because I haven't heard anyone else mention a similar thing before.

Fictional characters have less agency than real-life people, because the former have no minds of their own and are completely constructs of someone else's imagination. That someone else bears the burden of creating a solid and realistic/verisimilitudinous impression of in-character sexual consent, especially in a world where such consent seems to get forgotten in favor of Sex Sells.

edited 8th Jun '16 7:39:08 AM by hellomoto

@war877: I think you may have misinterpreted what I was saying there.

I like conflicts where both sides have people with a mix of good and bad regardless of who it seems one is supposed to root for; however, I also like writing people who are at least a little more bad than good, because they're harder to predict; and I don't think that good triumphing over evil in the end is necessary or foregone, regardless of how stark the contrasts are.

To elaborate a little more: I come out of writing horror. What I've learned from that is that the biggest conflict, the one that gets to me personally and feels more vital if not quite so urgent, is not between Good and Evil, whether embodied in people or more abstract forces, but between the human desire to live and feel like there's a point to living and everything that exists outside of people and life and meaning. I'm not talking demon-gods with tentacles or anything that can easily be given a face, but what's behind all of them: Death and the unknowable.

We're scared of bad people because they can subtract things from our lives like life and happiness and freedom. But they're really just proxies, many of whom are dangerous either because they have no immediately visible fear of loss or because they are *always* afraid of it (cf. the Hagakure on the fear of death). But either way, you're talking about other people, with inner lives and basic needs and all that. People who want something. What's interesting to me isn't a zero-sum win condition, but the potential for stalemates and complete losses—the possibility of who's winning being completely irrelevant even if you're betting on white or black.

@Hell: You might be interested in a blog called Bikini Armor Battle Damage. It's dedicated to displaying ridiculous female armour and discussing why it's bad, and also why defenses of it frequently don't quite work. Many of the point you made are ones it espouses, for example, such as "A female character can't 'choose' to dress sexily because a character is only what the creator designs them to be and has no true agency". One of the rules they hold up on occasion is, essentially, "Is this a good character". In other words, one can get away with a bit of cheesecake, if the character is well-written and realistic, and the cheesecake is reasonable. No amount of characterization will ever make a chain-mail bikini make sense (Except perhaps in the case of Maureen Burnbaum, Barbarian Adventuress, if only because she's an outright parody and I'm not even sure she dresses like that in the stories).

I don't think sexiness in media is bad(Although it's awfully one-sided and a tad over-saturated), but a character probably shouldn't just be for sexiness. That's just a bad character. But if you put the character in an appropriate situation, many women do choose to dress in ways they feel are sexy. Many men do, as well, for that matter. But it needs to make sense for the character. For example, I have a character who's the head of a government department that deals with Magical Creatures. She's a tiny, hard-assed ball of fury and spite who has deliberately avoided romantic relationships. With that in mind, I would never put her in a sexy outfit, because that doesn't make sense for her.

On the other hand, Another character is a young adult Half-Orc who, like many young adults, wants to feel pretty. She would conceivably choose to put on a sexy outfit for that reason.

There are other factors to consider for social reasons, of course, but the core of it is: Does it make sense for this character in this situation.

@Hellomoto: Apologies for any lack of clarity; I suppose it's what I get for deciding to write a post so soon before heading off to work. I use "third-rate hack" and "first-rate hack" loosely and tongue-in-cheek; basically, the latter is the one who has just enough Genre Savvy to try and shield themselves from criticism, without making a meaningful effort to do anything more.

This definitely cuts to the heart of the matter, well said. Of course, not everyone is gonna agree precisely where that line is; people smarter than us combined have debated the question over many a work. And there are complications I could bring up, but one matter at a time.

Here, I think you may be stretching just a bit. When it's a Fanservice Extra whose face you never see, that's gonna raise an eyebrow, but there is the practical matter to consider: you can show more of a woman's skin from the back and side without them being "naked" (and thus earning censorious ire) than from the front.

edited 8th Jun '16 4:20:51 PM by KillerClowns

I've been following Bikini Armor Battle Damage, and took many ideas from there!

I knew I must have been stretching things a bit far. There're also other ways of thinking, such as how it's possible to admire even up-front sexiness from the sides, and the sexy person isn't and doesn't have to be directly aware of every single person admiring them all the time. The sexy person only has to know there's at least one person admiring them (not in a bad or disrespectful way), and said sexy person should be confident of showing off. The Sexy Backless Outfit is just another method and style of showing off.

An argument I've heard before, that I have no answer for: Studies have shown that while the media is a reflection of society's beliefs, changing the media does not change anything in society. If you want to crush misogynism, get out of the media and deal directly with the misogynism IRL.

How true is it that changing the media we consume will not affect what we believe?

edited 8th Jun '16 9:51:43 PM by hellomoto

That question feels a bit like a moot point to me: whether it actually changes people's attitudes or not, I would think the real reason to avoid perpetuating problematic tropes is simply the desire to avoid perpetuating them.

How do you guys take notes from books and things? I've been fascinated by the Shout-Out to Shakespeare, and I been studying some books to include some shout outs myself, taking notes, and everything, but I want to know, how do you guys do it?

I fucking envy Jorge Luis Borges! Everything is his writing is a shout out!

@JHM: You are probably right that I misinterpreted your statement. I took it as saying you found pure good and pure evil boring, due to their obviousness and predictability.

What you are probably saying is that you prefer to write dark characters for a variety of reasons.

@everyone: Also, I'm thirding the question. If you don't want to go through traditional publishing, what is a good site to publish original fiction on?

Seconded. Even if it's not gonna change the world, not wanting to be part of the problem, or even simple professionalism and future-proofing, are reason enough.

and : In that case, why should I critique other people's work and tell them to cut down on the sexualised outfits?

edited 9th Jun '16 8:57:59 AM by hellomoto

Uh, should you? Unless the author themselves has asked for a critique, criticism is almost always a service to the consumer. If you are serving the part of the community that doesn't mind potentially offensive content, this sounds like a bad thing to critique. If you are serving people who think that kind of thing is a disgrace, then it is an important thing to critique.

I'd be interested in seeing those studies directly, rather than just hearing 'studies show', personally. Not that I'm doubting them inherently, mind, just that a lot of people will throw that around with pretty flimsy, unscientific, or even no real studies at all. And, frankly, many different studies can often contradict one another.

But on a more core level, while trying to avoid troublesome tropes might not save the world, I think it would help, or at the very least it certainly wouldn't hurt.

The thing is, ideas and attitudes don't spring from the aether. People know, and understand, what they're exposed to. Yes, social education also plays a heavy role, and one likes to imagine that every single person would have a good mother, or sister, who would teach them to respect women as people, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

When you have so, so much media telling people that men are from Mars and women are from Venus, people lose the inclination to communicate because they think it's pointless. When every piece of media features sexy women, or worse yet, a 'Plain' woman becoming attractive, people begin to think that Attractive is what a woman should be, first and foremost. On the flipside, when every piece of media features powerful, or rich, or stoic men... It might seem difficult to believe, but if you look around you'll probably see it. I know two men who love their wives very deeply, but still bitch about being married, because that's just what's done. It's not so hard to imagine that kind of attitude carrying over to other things.

We still have to work to stamp out the worst of it in real life, of course, but I think we could help that process along by trying to make media support it less. It won't save the world, but I do think it'll help.

I want my female villain to get into fist fights with my hero.

But i'm kinda afraid of controversy.

Feminism means that punching women is morally equal to punching men, because they can take it and give it back.

I mean it's wrong in both cases, but hey. At least it's equally wrong.

Why the hell is the first response to a belief in gender equality "we can both punch each other without repercussions now"?

Like, even if it is wrong, men still hit women and get away with it. All the time. And the women get blamed for it too. It's terrible.

I... I mean... I was referring to the fact that a belief in gender equality should mean that there's nothing controversial about a male hero physically fighting a female villain. I wasn't trying to talk about any real-world shit. I know that what you're describing still happens, I just don't think that it's relevant here?

I think it's a matter of context. It's still relevant, but in stories, women should be able to put up a fight against men and vice versa without gender coming to a head.

Now, abuse is a bit different—it's a more touchy topic. If you're gonna portray a woman getting hit by a male partner or by a guy in the context of pursuing a romantic/sexual interest, at least say it's still as fucking wrong as a man getting abused by women in the same context.

We do have a history of women getting physically abused by men who treat them as property (and a history of media fetishing male-on-female abuse), which is why there's an unfortunate implication.

One resolved only if we constantly show that women are every bit as equal as men in their ability to be strong, both good and bad. Especially when we've swung the other way and started making comedy of female-on-male abuse.

How did we get here from the question of how to represent consensual sexuality in fictional characters? A fight between two people of opposite sexes isn't sexual.

By the same token, even if it is wrong, women still hit men and get away with it. All the time. And the men get blamed for it too. It's terrible.

No, I'm not saying men hitting women should automatically be okay because of gender equality. Person X hitting Person Y is not automatically okay regardless of the gender (or lack thereof) of either X or Y. But within the context of a fight scene, as is being discussed, Wouldn't Hit a Girl should be a thing of the past.

Batman put it best:

I know it may sound weird to some people, and maybe it is just a Canadian thing, but culturally, I was raised in a culture where it is a worse accusation to accuse a man of domestic abuse, rape, or infidelity. Not only would such a criticism be considered more likely true, but also worse if true.

It is because it is a more serious offence, that striking a woman in fiction pushes up the maturity rating further.

It is also because it is a lesser offence, that female on male abuse and rape are played for comedy.

Also, I should point out that these beliefs are not ones I adhere to personally.

Realistically, men are stronger than women, and testosterone confers a level of pain resistance. Individual cases vary, of course, and in a work of fiction the author can decree any state of affairs that serves the story, but in RL women are at greater risk of physical abuse than men are.

That may be true across the Western world. (Ohioan here.) A woman hitting her husband is viewed as laughable since the perception by greater society is that women are too weak to do any real damage to men. This does not take any emotional damage caused by the reasons she struck him into account because, of course, men are supposed to be stoic about these things. Double Standard: Abuse, Female on Male is a trope for a reason.

I don't know how many remember this, but this was a factor in the Gosselins' divorce, of Jon and Kate Plus 8 fame. Kate would regularly hit Jon hard enough to hurt on-camera, but with a motion that seemed playful, calling the strikes 'love-taps'. Some people believed the 'love-tap' excuse and brushed them off, including the show's editing team (who put together some montages of her hitting Jon with a playful smile), but it turned out that Jon really didn't like it or think it was cute, and she didn't care and kept doing it. It wasn't the sole reason for their very public divorce, but it was part of a number of small issues with both of them not taking each other's feelings into account, and the 'love-taps' turned out to be a demonstration of a gender double standard.

I'm trying to keep to discussions of consent and sexuality in purely fictional mediums such as novels, comic books, shows, and movies.

Speaking of gender inequality, how is male sexuality treated? Seems that in the media, while female sexuality often lacks consent and reduces women into sex objects for straight males to stare at, male sexuality is largely "this guy is buff" and men who rescue, protect, and then hit on the aforementioned 'sexy' women. Or something. How exactly would discussions of sexual consent apply to male sexuality, even if the nature of the discussion is very different from discussions of sexual consent for female sexuality?

edited 10th Jun '16 7:46:24 PM by hellomoto

So, "This guy is buff" isn't actually sexualization of men. It's difficult for many people to figure out what sexualization would look like for men, because we see it so rarely.

I used to live in a gay district(Technically I now live across the street from it), so I got a pretty good look at sexualization of men. Generally speaking, it actually works in much the same way that the sexualization of women does, sort of. The thing is, the core elements are they same, but they're portrayed in inherently different ways.

So, sexualization of men focuses very much on a man's sexual attributes. The groin and buttocks are in prominent display—frequently with the guy pushing his hips forward in a pose that would be kind of uncomfortable, but also quite anime, to stand in.

Bulges are also ubiquitous, sort of the cleavage of men. There's also a lot of focus on the abdominal and pectoral regions. Generally the arms will be held in such a way as to artificially make the pecs appear larger. Arm-behind-the-head is also fairly common, as it's a pose that strongly defines the pectoral, arm and shoulder area.

So, that's generally how male sexualization is similar to female sexualization: There's a lot of focus on the sexual characteristics, for fairly obvious reasons, and on the general shape and pleasantness of the body. The main difference is, while female sexualization tends to paint them as... let's be generous and call it 'ready', male sexualization tends to paint men as 'eager' - that is to say, there's an element of power and ferocity inherent in their expressions. For the most part, it very much says "I plan to have sex with you' rather than 'I want you to have sex with me', if that makes sense?

Of course, it's also not universal. I would say that the generic male sexualization, but many people—like me—prefer less traditionally masculine men. I certainly can't deny that a good old-fashioned Smoulder can go a long way, 'boyish' men also have their own unique form of sexualization, that's a bit closer still to female sexualization. Even then, there's still a more clear element of Intgent, even if it's just playfulness rather than push-you-against-the-wall-and-go-to-town-ness.

What I'm getting at here is that while male and female sexualization are superficially similar, what I've noticed is that male sexualization is undercut with implication of power, interest, almost aggression, while female sexualization seems to be relatively content to have her just be there,

Perhaps someone will refute me on my points about the female half, but I will definitely stick to my guns on male sexualization usually being built on power and intent.