Yes, Samus counts, but since day 1 of Samus, she's shown skin if you're skilled. I mean, she counts, but she kinda counts both ways.
Strong woman, yes, but a strong woman who poses in a bikini for the male audience if you're fast. She's not posing for the lady gamers, is she?
Plus, there's Zero Suit Samus. Take what you will from that.
Edit: Oh, lets not forget the whine-fest she put out in the newest game. She was perfect in Metroid Fusion; a good mix of Samus' thoughts but still her good, cold, stoic killing.
Wearing very little under a massive suit kinda makes sense actually. You'd be dying of heat otherwise. I always took it as that was just what she wore underneath. If it was dude he'd probably be dressed in a wife beater and a speedo... I mean, I know Robert Downy Jr wears full Armani suits and shit underneath his, but really, that shit would be hot as hell.
I never played any Metroid past SNES so I can't comment past that.
That's just incorrect anyway you slice it. Men get just as insecure and jealous as women, maybe even more and try to push it off onto other people as their faults. It's definitely socially-manufactured just like blonde hair, blue eyes with tight bodies is considered the hottest of the hottest, in America at least.
No, we don't. Not like women do, anyway. I've never tried to sabatoge one of my friends because he got a piece of ass that I didn't, or attracts a type of woman that I want to, or looks better or has more money than I do. I also don't question my self-worth as a result of it. You may have a few sadsack, low self-esteem men that get weepy and cry and get emotional over trivial things like that, but you can't even begin to generalize that men and women react the same way or engage in the same types of self-destructive behavior.
DPS more than the others imo.
The Other M Doesn't exist. Fuck Team Ninja and all they stand for.Oh, lets not forget the whine-fest she put out in the newest game
Oooooooooooh, girl!
All women do.
I'm gonna side with the straight men on this. As far as tendencies go, straight men and straight women have different ways of being aggressive, and some gay men are more similar to women in the way they attack others.
That... kinda sounds sexist, mate.
You're right in that there are behavioural differences along the gender lines, but you paint a frankly exagerated picture, there.
Not to mention that it's hard to distinguish the part of those differences that are due to hormonal or cultural causes; the former is immuable (at least while not altering and individual's gender itself) the latter is part of what hardline feminism aims to eliminate.
So, use of a scantily-clad woman in entertainment is objectification but use of a scantily-clad man in entertainment is some sort of aspirational thing?Originally Posted by Kuya
Don't you think that's somewhat of a self-fulfilling way to look at the issue?
By the way, I can't speak for all straight men, but I certainly don't "view myself" (pun not intended but worth keeping) in Brad Pitt, DiCaprio or <currentlypopularboyband>.
Oh, and those male underwear models? They're probably there for your benefit, not ours.
We tend not to even look at those posters in the first place, let alone let them influence our choices in clothing.
(some might, once again not speaking for all...)
No, they're sexualized for women. I base this simply on the premise that someone with Channing Tatum's acting skills would not get acting roles without Channing Tatum's looks. Girls go to see a movie with Channing Tatum in it cause there is a human being in that movie that has Channing Tatum's looks, not because there is a human being in that move that has Channing Tatum's acting skill.
Assuming the premise that tatum is a terrible actor: if objectification simply means using good looking people to obtain more customers, then what's wrong with objectification?
Not a damn thing.
Channing Tatum was actually pretty good in "A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints".