PlanetCrap 6.0!
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
T O P I C
Eidos Soliloquy: Part one
May 19th 2000, 10:17 CEST by Seth

But enough about me, let's talk about Sex.

Namely, would you like to have sex with a voluptuos 16 year old girl? Would you like to attend an event where you could see two blonde haired genetically engineered hyper-lesbians get 'intimate' live on a jumbo tron? If so, step inside to the show that is the Electronic Entertainment Expo.

The images you've clicked on were taken at this year's E3. Image 1 is of Eidos' new "Tomb Raider" model, a supposed 16 yearold British girl who's always dreamed of being a video game character. Image 2 is a still of a movie taped at the GoD Games booth at E3 where, out of nowhere, on screen - two of the GoD Games booth babes appeared on the jumbo tron and started doing very naughty, naughty, things to each other.

My mind is flooded with things I want to say, but it's like a rush of ice cold water hitting your face when you didn't expect it and it just leaves you spluttering. Spluttering and wondering "what the **** just happened?".

Dear judges, when discussing this, please remember Eidos Enteractive's Kenneth Lockely was arrested not 6 months ago for trying to procure a 9 year old girl for sex.

And now for that famous PlanetCrap twist. While looking at image one, it got my eye that the Lara Croft model does looks much older than 16. Being that I wasn't in that much of a rush to make a fool of myself and came up with these specs from Daily Radar.

Birthdate: July 6, 1983
Height: 5' 11
Weight: 140 lbs
Eyes: Brown
Hair: Brown
Vital statistics: 32DD, 25, 36
Yeah, "The goal of commercial absolution." Right?
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Eidos Soliloquy: Part one

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
#1 by "RedLine"
2000-05-19 10:23:25
redline@omegaforge.com http://www.omegaforge.com/pod/
You need to understand that in the UK, the legal age of consent is <B>16</B> and the legal drinking age is <B>18</B>.

I have no problems with this.
#2 by "RedLine"
2000-05-19 10:32:18
redline@omegaforge.com http://www.omegaforge.com/pod/
Wow an on-topic first post.. Ok, to add a little more to my comments, the <B>E3</B>, you have to be over a certain age to enter.  And we all know that at the moment, the game industry is mainly a "male" thing... that is a sad fact in itself, but there we are.

I don't think this topic brings up anything new or shocking... I'm at work right now so I can't look at the pictures (the shugashack is either blocked it will show up on the Proxy logs) but they can't be anything more than soft-core at best...

The E3 seems all about glitz and a let-your-hair-down-and-have-fun attitude... it's no different than walking, half-drunk, through the red light district in Amsterdam, doing a little <I>window-shopping</I>, yes it's naughty, but it's just a little harmless fun.

I dunno why people get so worked up over sexual imagery... good clean sexual imagery I have no problem with... it's a natural thing, after all. ;-)
#3 by "Morn"
2000-05-19 10:34:21
morn@planetcrap.com http://www.planetcrap.com
Not 100% sure, but as far as I remember, the guy who was arrested worked for Core (Tomb Raider's developer), not Eidos (even though the exact difference is kinda blurry these days)...

Anyway. I hate the state this industry is in. I despise the fact that 80% of the E3 coverage I've seen so far consisted of "booth babe reports". When I see the sweaty, fat, pale white trash standing in front of the Eidos booth, shouting various requests to undress or participate in sex to the "Eidos girls", I'm beginning to feel ashamed for being a part of this industry.

Grrr.

- Morn
#4 by "Morn"
2000-05-19 10:39:29
morn@planetcrap.com http://www.planetcrap.com
<b>#2</b> "RedLine" wrote...
<QUOTE>I dunno why people get so worked up over sexual imagery... good clean sexual imagery I have no problem with... it's a natural thing, after all. ;-)</QUOTE>

There's a little difference between "sex" and "sexism".

- Morn
<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#5 by "Seth Krieg"
2000-05-19 10:40:19
seth@planetcrap.com http://www.planetcrap.com
Oh yeah, well my law is better than your law. 16 is underage in America. Tell me the 16 Yearold girl wasn't promoting her body to American Gamers at an American expo where American laws say you may not stick your thingy into a girl until she's old enough to be out of high school. Also tell me Kenneth Lockely wasn't arrested for trying to procure sex from a 9 year old girl, and tell me Eidos hasn't been doing this for years - seemingly getting progressively more exaggerated with each each release. Please notice that just because the legal drinking age is 18 in the UK, it would be illegal for them to serve drinks to minors at E3.
#6 by "Seth Krieg"
2000-05-19 10:43:30
seth@planetcrap.com http://www.planetcrap.com
Morn: Eidos owns Core. It was a screw up, but negligible I think.

Me apologizes and takes my Ambien, good night folks. :)
#7 by "Morn"
2000-05-19 10:47:43
morn@planetcrap.com http://www.planetcrap.com
<b>#6</b> "Seth Krieg" wrote...
<QUOTE>Morn: Eidos owns Core. It was a screw up, but negligible I think.</QUOTE>

Do they actually <i>own</i> them? I didn't know that -- my bad. Anyway, I'm just a nasty German nitpicker, anyway. =)

Grrrr... must... kill... all... humans...

- Morn
<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#8 by "Seth Krieg"
2000-05-19 10:55:12
seth@planetcrap.com http://www.planetcrap.com
One last thing I forgot to post in the article, Mike Wilson (President of <a href="http://www.godgames.com">GoDGames</a>) is also the man behind the infamous "John Romero is going to make you his bitch" campaign, as well as the less blatant "For those of you married to Diablo, prepare to meet your mistress." campaign with Darkstone - I'm kind of wondering why so many intelligent people bought into him. This revolution he prophecied turned into a quick buyout from Take 2, no doubt resulting in a lot of money going into the pocket of a man who hasn't really done a thing for gamers. Well, not lately at least.
#9 by "RedLine"
2000-05-19 11:07:51
redline@omegaforge.com http://www.omegaforge.com/pod/
[5] Seth Krieg

The point was, as far as the <B>girl herself</B> is concerned, what she is doing is <B>right</B>....

Sheesh, I love people who are paranoid and get all defensive at the first sniff of an "attack"

The girl is English, the legal age here is 16, so as far as she is concerned, it is all above board.  The topic and your comments seem to be suggesting she's some kind of slut, but in the environment she has been brought up in, it is perceived to be ok to "show her body off" or whatever you want to call it.

[4] Morn

This is true...  That's why I said "And we all know that at the moment, the game industry is mainly a "male" thing... that is a sad fact in itself, but there we are."

Generally men like looking at women... in an innocent childish way as well as in a hard-core nasty way, and all the ways in between.  But define "sexism" for me please... if a woman wants to show off (Parts of) her body and get paid for it, is that sexism or is the woman just smart and the men driven by their hormones...  I guess it's just (Once again) down to perspective. ;-)

The fact is Edios knows what sells and we shouldn't be surprised or shocked about what does sell... The intellictual viewpoint that somehow you are not being respectful to a woman if you're just looking at her body is kinda silly when you get down to it...

Basically humans have never really evolved from the animal instincts...  we all work off very primeval and hormonal instincts, no matter what we may think... if we think we are in control of our bodies, it's an illusion... we are still fundamentally wired by things which we cannot control... it's not simply a social attitude.

Of course, no one is "horny" all the time... most of the time you're in a netural state, but the fact is, the emotions can kick in at any time, and it all comes down to the basic instinct of reproducing to keep the species alive... something which we as humans just have not evolved out of.

Being "sexist" is about negatives.. being nasty... saying someone can't do something "Just because she's a woman"... looking at a woman's body is not negative or nasty.... it's fun and it's a compliment to the woman... of course, things like rape and such are terrible.... but they are extreme examples of people having no control over the basic need to mate.
#10 by "RedLine"
2000-05-19 11:11:53
redline@omegaforge.com http://www.omegaforge.com/pod/
[9] RedLine

I said "in the environment she has been brought up in, it is perceived to be ok to "show her body off" or whatever you want to call it."

Of course meaning that "Now she's 16 she's ok" kind of thing.... I'm sure you knew what I meant in any case... Argh and now I have to defend myself from the "But she couldn't act in a porn film" angle... this isn't porn, it's just being sexually suggestive... Mmm anyways, try to focus on the bottom half of the #9 comment, that's where the real point is. ;-)
#11 by "Lowtax"
2000-05-19 11:12:58
lowtax@somethingawful.com http://www.somethingawful.com
Ummm... sex sells.

Hooray, all questions answered.

As long as companies can continually sell their games based on the quality of the tits they show (as opposed to the content), they're going to keep doing it.  Judging by the gaming community's response to the gratuitous T&A so far, this trend won't stop any time soon.

Sex sells.

-Lowtax
#12 by "Tom Cleghorn"
2000-05-19 11:14:46
tc10@nospam.st-andrews.ac.uk http://www.fisty.com/~tom
Questions:
1: In the States, the age of consent is 18, and in the UK, 16. Is it alright for a 16-year-old Briton to have sex in the US, or vice-versa? They're biologically the same, and, broadly speaking, physiologically so too, so why not? (This is with particular reference to RedLine's "The girl is English, the legal age here is 16, so as far as she is concerned, it is all above board.")
2: Same question with drinking. Why does the US not consider its minors 'the same' as other countries' youth?
I've got an exam today. I'll be interested to come back from it and see what people have to say.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#13 by "Serpwidgets"
2000-05-19 11:21:55
serpwidgets@hotmail.com http://people.ce.mediaone.net/serpwidgets/index.ht
<b>#2</b> "RedLine" wrote...
<QUOTE>I dunno why people get so worked up over sexual imagery... good clean sexual imagery I have no problem with... it's a natural thing, after all. ;-) </QUOTE>

It can be argued that rape is natural, so is murder... but I'll not get inflammatory. :)

I went to E3 last year. I went to see game stuff. If I want to see chicks, I can simply turn on the TV to pretty much any channel and wait 2 minutes. The E3 is about games. Games are a completely different thing than sex, for me anyway, so I really find it to be nothing more than incredibly insulting that all of these companies think that they're going to get me to buy a PC game by putting a picture of a female in the ad, and too often barely related or completely unrelated to anything the game is about. Yes, I'm also taking this time to ramble off topic (as usual) and gripe about gaming mag ads, even though I refuse to ever buy any of them anyway (and that's one of the reasons.)

I don't necessarily think, however, that girly pics are the entire reason for videogames being dominated by (and played mostly by) males. Videogames were around for a long time before this trend, and probably with similar demographics. There are physiological and instinctual differences between the sexes which may go somewhere toward explaining such a phenomenon, but I'm not going to go there.

Anyway, my point is I really don't want tits shoved in my face when I want to find out about the latest games. If I want tits in my face I can do that pretty much anywhere else in this stupid hormone-driven, breast-worshipping society. Hell, we even have restaurants for that shit!<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#14 by "Seth Krieg"
2000-05-19 11:26:03
sdk@rosenet.net http://www.unrealuniverse.com
<b>#11</b> "Lowtax" wrote...
<QUOTE>Ummm... sex sells.

Hooray, all questions answered.

As long as companies can continually sell their games based on the quality of the tits they show (as opposed to the content), they're going to keep doing it. Judging by the gaming community's response to the gratuitous T&A so far, this trend won't stop any time soon.

Sex sells.

-Lowtax </QUOTE>

I find it really ironic such a negative comment coming from you. We know sex sells, but this industry is having its lot cast in with the WWF crowd because of guys like Mike Wilson. Now you make like watching the WWF, but I really can't believe what I see when I go to work and see grown men wearing "Stone Cold 3:16" t-shirts. Or I read about how this one model is sueing the WWF because she was fired for not agreeing to portray herself as a lesbian for a wrestling match. As a gamer, I don't want to be stereotyped like that, and think it's fair to comment on it.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#15 by "Serpwidgets"
2000-05-19 11:34:10
serpwidgets@hotmail.com http://people.ce.mediaone.net/serpwidgets/index.ht
<b>#9</b> "RedLine" wrote...
<QUOTE>The intellictual viewpoint that somehow you are not being respectful to a woman if you're just looking at her body is kinda silly when you get down to it... </QUOTE>

I agree on this point. In certain contexts, men and women <b>are</b> sex objects. To suggest otherwise is just missing reality. I've often wondered, in response to the usual comments that magazines like Playboy are degrading to women because it portrays them as <i>sex objects</i>, about the following hypothetical:

There's a magazine called "Business Woman" that is published for women who want to be successful in business. It only talks about and protrays women in all things relating to business. How to get ahead, how to negotiate contracts and salaries, etc.

I really wonder if those people complaining about Playboy would say that "Business Woman" magazine was degrading to women because it only portrays them as <i>business objects</i> and therefore suggests that their only value is in their business-ness, or whatever stupid term you want to use.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#16 by "RedLine"
2000-05-19 11:37:17
redline@omegaforge.com http://www.omegaforge.com/pod/
[13] Serpwidgets

Ok I have not been to the <B>E3</B> granted, so perhaps I don't have the complete picture.  But from the outside, it seems more like a glitzy, <I>Vegas</I> type atmosphere than something that is genuinely showing off the games.

Yeah I can agree - and understand - that you don't want to walk around getting (Metaphorically speaking) tits shoved in your face all the time - When I search for (say) +photos "Statue of Liberty" in Alta Vista, I don't really want pages of "hot sex fucking dirty bitches photos" type links to pop up - I think the point I started off trying to make was that everyone <I>knows</I> what the E3 is like... it is nothing new, so I kinda find it funny that it would be worth a topic on the 'Crap.

I guess I kinda drifted from that original thought of mine a bit though, eh ?  ;-)
#17 by "RedLine"
2000-05-19 11:38:44
redline@omegaforge.com http://www.omegaforge.com/pod/
[15] Serpwidgets

Yep, that was my point there exactly.  Nice example, I may borrow that one in the future. ;-)
#18 by "RedLine"
2000-05-19 11:45:11
redline@omegaforge.com http://www.omegaforge.com/pod/
[13] Serpwidgets

<quote>It can be argued that rape is natural, so is murder... but I'll not get inflammatory. :)</quote>

And I said [9] RedLine

<quote>of course, things like rape and such are terrible.... but they are extreme examples of people having no control over the basic need to mate.</quote>

Of course I should have said "no control <B>at all</b>"... but anyways:

Yes you are right... rape is "natural" in the sense that it is the act of having sex... but even in the "animal kingdom" a lot of species actively choose their mate, so the practice of preferring to have sex with a certain individual is, I believe, a fundamental of nature and not a social condition... so rape is "wrong" because the "law" of choice exists in nature as a whole.
#19 by "Serpwidgets"
2000-05-19 11:58:19
serpwidgets@hotmail.com http://people.ce.mediaone.net/serpwidgets/index.ht
<b>#16</b> "RedLine" wrote...
<QUOTE>Ok I have not been to the E3 granted, so perhaps I don't have the complete picture.</QUOTE>

I went in '97, too, but didn't see the full show because I was there and gone a couple days before it started, so I couldn't tell you how much of the same was there. But I had heard that it has been steadily increasing. I'd say ask Jagger, he went last year and this year, so he should be able to tell you more about it. But knowing the way this society is and the way trends work here, it's about as close to a given as I can imagine. I just don't like the trend, and even last year I found it to be more insulting to me than to the booth babes.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#20 by "RedLine"
2000-05-19 12:02:31
redline@omegaforge.com http://www.omegaforge.com/pod/
[5] Seth Krieg

<quote>...where American laws say you may not stick your thingy into a girl until she's old enough to be out of high school...</quote>

I just noticed that.  In the UK you leave school at 16 too... it is your choice then if you go on to College and then to University.
#21 by "RedLine"
2000-05-19 12:04:21
redline@omegaforge.com http://www.omegaforge.com/pod/
[19] Serpwidgets

<quote>I'd say ask Jagger</quote>

Ah, so it is you. ;-)  I thought it was. ;-)  Good to see you're still around.
#22 by "deadlock"
2000-05-19 12:07:50
deadlock@eircom.net
Personally I don't find it unpleasant to open a magazine or switch on the TV and see a female form that is pleasing to the eye. Likewise I know most women aren't particularly distressed when they turn on the TV and are met with what they might consider to be a fine example of the male sex.

Course it's a fact that women aren't quite as concerned with sex as men - they aren't as stimulated by imagery either. But you only have to look at the fact that they're <b>still</b> making those poxy Diet Coke adds to see that female-oriented sexual-imagery is a factor in marketing.

And there's a lot to be said for not stifling your instincts or hormones. In the last number of years, Ireland (and many other countries) has been rocked by revelations about the paedophile activities of many priests (to the extent that the Church no longer commands the level of respect that it once did). I have no doubt in my mind that this is due in large part to the vow of celibacy that the Catholic Church imposes on its' clergy. All that testerone induced sexual frustration has to vent itself somehow.

deadlock
#23 by "Morn"
2000-05-19 12:10:40
morn@planetcrap.com http://www.planetcrap.com
<b>#15</b> "Serpwidgets" wrote...
<QUOTE>I really wonder if those people complaining about Playboy would say that "Business Woman" magazine was degrading to women because it only portrays them as business objects and therefore suggests that their only value is in their business-ness, or whatever stupid term you want to use.</QUOTE>

I'm sorry, Serp, but this is probably the silliest thing I've read in a long time. Unless, of course, "Business Woman" is a magazine made solely for the (sexual) enjoyment of men.

- Morn
<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#24 by "Morn"
2000-05-19 12:17:25
morn@planetcrap.com http://www.planetcrap.com
<b>#22</b> "deadlock" wrote...
<QUOTE>Course it's a fact that women aren't quite as concerned with sex as men - they aren't as stimulated by imagery either. But you only have to look at the fact that they're still making those poxy Diet Coke adds to see that female-oriented sexual-imagery is a factor in marketing.</QUOTE>

The Diet Coke ads have <b>female</b>-oriented sexual imagery? Oh my.

- Morn
<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#25 by "Seth Krieg"
2000-05-19 12:20:23
sdk@rosenet.net http://www.unrealuniverse.com
morn: Yes, Eidos does own Core. I've heard rumors Toby Gard (TR's original designer) left Core/Eidos because he wanted to move on from the TR franchise a long time ago. But men will pay money to see sexy ladies, so he left to form his own company (Confounding Factor) where he's now working on Galleon.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#26 by "Serpwidgets"
2000-05-19 12:36:55
serpwidgets@hotmail.com http://people.ce.mediaone.net/serpwidgets/index.ht
<b>#23</b> "Morn" wrote...
<QUOTE>I'm sorry, Serp, but this is probably the silliest thing I've read in a long time. Unless, of course, "Business Woman" is a magazine made solely for the (sexual) enjoyment of men. </QUOTE>

The point is not whom it is supposed to entertain, it is about whom it is "portraying" as what. There is this ridiculous idea going around that if someone of a certain race/gender/nationality/age/handicap is "portrayed" in what may be considered by certain people to be a "negative" light, then it is offensive or degrading.

Playboy is portraying women in one particular light, that of sex objects, and women are in fact sex objects within that context. Yet somehow this is being extrapolated into "all women are good for is having sex with" by certain parties who are basically looking for something to complain about. If that logic holds, then the same logic holds that "Business Woman" magazine is degrading women by portraying them as only being good for conducting business. Whom it is targeted at doesn't really matter at all, it's the message that is being delivered (women are only good for one thing) that is supposedly offensive and degrading.

And yes, it's <i>incredibly</i> silly when you actually think about the whole thing in context, Innit?<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#27 by "Morn"
2000-05-19 12:42:38
morn@planetcrap.com http://www.planetcrap.com
<b>#26</b> "Serpwidgets" wrote...
<QUOTE>Whom it is targeted at doesn't really matter at all, it's the message that is being delivered</QUOTE>

I don't agree. In fact, if you ask me, those two go hand in hand together. After all, there <i>is</i> a reason why "they" chose to put their "booth babes" into bikinis, and not business suits.

- Morn
<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#28 by "Chango"
2000-05-19 12:42:56
papa_chango@hotmail.com http://www.btinternet.com/~jedi99/
Oh my God.

We've gone from a young woman posing at a trade fair to drum up sales(and at 16 she will be in command of her own actions, earning money, voting, paying taxes and menstruating - she <b>is</b> a woman), to comments on rape, porn, sticking things in, etcetc.

Get over it.  Jeez.  Maybe the USA raises an eyeborw or two at this kind of 'promotion', but you hvae to understand that the UK is awash with these kinds of images, all in the name of money, and a lot of the time it's absolutely NOTHING to do with gaming or computers.

Daily newspapers with theor Page 3, something that is classed now as a British Institution, as a million times more blatant and 'in-yer-face' than said Lara model.  Add to that the miriad of magazines directed at 20-something males: FHM, Maxim, Loaded, GQ, etc etc:- cover to cover b00bz.

Like Lowtax, sex sells and that's the ONLY reason these companies do it.  If it was instead: 'Frogs Sell", then all you'd see at this years E3 are booth frogs.  It's a rediculous analogy, I know, but it really is that simple.  Honest!

For one, males are to blame, purely because as a species, we collectively drool over female flesh and well do almost anything to see more of it.  I'm not saying we're all like that, but avereaged-out we're collectively 'lusting males'.  Almost every company has advertised their product using sex as the selling device, be it dishwashing liquid, car manufacturers, beer commercials, and womens magazines....

Eidos are simply given a stand at E3 every year, and they are obliged to decorate it in any way they think the punters will be attracted.  We all know that the majority of E3 attendees aren't the worlds most amazing romeo's - it's an old steriotype that scarily still applies to a lot of the punters - and so Eidos have the business-minded insight to play on the punter's weakness - females, and attractive, scantily clad ones at that.

If you're going to be angry at anyone for anything, be mad at Eidos for being successful, be mad at the boothe babes for playing their mind-games on the lonely, uncomfortable punter's, but most of all, be angry at yourself for thinking that this is some kind of 'forced labour' whereby faceless corporations bribe young girls to take off their clothes and bare the brunt of sweaty, uncouth, lusting bigots.


-Chango
#29 by "Chango"
2000-05-19 12:44:42
papa_chango@hotmail.com http://www.btinternet.com/~jedi99/
That was supposed to read: "Like Lowtax says, sex sells"

- I think it sounds kinda wrong :0
#30 by "Morn"
2000-05-19 12:53:20
morn@planetcrap.com http://www.planetcrap.com
<b>#28</b> "Chango" wrote...
<QUOTE>We've gone from a young woman posing at a trade fair to drum up sales(and at 16 she will be in command of her own actions, earning money, voting, paying taxes and menstruating - she is a woman), to comments on rape, porn, sticking things in, etcetc.</QUOTE>

I see the gist of this thread not in the <i>16 year old Lara model</i> thing, but in the fact that we (as the games industry) have reached a point where I couldn't, for example, bring my girlfriend to E3 or ECTS without dying with shame.

Add the Indexing (ie, "banning") stuff here in Germany, and walking into a games store feels like browsing the "adult movies" in a video rental store for me.

Do you remember the box art of Forsaken?

- Morn
<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#31 by "Chango"
2000-05-19 13:04:44
papa_chango@hotmail.com http://www.btinternet.com/~jedi99/
I remember the Battlecruiser 3000AD magazine advert better ;)



Sorry, I just proved your point, didn't I!!!
#32 by "Seth Krieg"
2000-05-19 13:09:22
sdk@rosenet.net http://www.unrealuniverse.com
<b>#29</b> "Chango" wrote...
<QUOTE>That was supposed to read: "Like Lowtax says, sex sells"

- I think it sounds kinda wrong :0 </QUOTE>

As I say, who's buying and how perverted are they?<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#33 by "Morn"
2000-05-19 13:14:18
morn@planetcrap.com http://www.planetcrap.com
<b>#31</b> "Chango" wrote...
<QUOTE>I remember the Battlecruiser 3000AD magazine advert better ;)</QUOTE>

Haven't seen that. What does it show/say?

- Morn
<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#34 by "RahvinTaka"
2000-05-19 13:15:21
donaldp@mad.scientist.com
<b>#22</b> "deadlock" wrote...
<QUOTE>Course it's a fact that women aren't quite as concerned with sex as men - they aren't as stimulated by imagery either. But you only have to look at the fact that they're still making those poxy Diet Coke adds to see that female-oriented sexual-imagery is a factor in marketing. </QUOTE>

I am sorry you are just wrong, plain and simple. Women aren't quite as interested in sex ? Pfft. Believing this you are probably a masodgonist (sp?) or are either living way in the past and don't have very good social skills.

<QUOTE>And there's a lot to be said for not stifling your instincts or hormones. In the last number of years, Ireland (and many other countries) has been rocked by revelations about the paedophile activities of many priests (to the extent that the Church no longer commands the level of respect that it once did). I have no doubt in my mind that this is due in large part to the vow of celibacy that the Catholic Church imposes on its' clergy. All that testerone induced sexual frustration has to vent itself somehow. </QUOTE>

Testosterone has nothing to do with it. The closest thing that testosterone does is promote competition. One of the reasons priests end up fucking kids is because the institution supports it. (Or at least the Catholic Church). For instance if you have any sexual "problems" wether they be peadophilia, the animal thing or homosexuality the same thing aplies (And no I don't think homosexuality is wrong ... they do). These people are recomended to join the cloth. This way they are supposed to live a life without commiting sin because they can't fuck.

When a priest commits one of these acts they are not kicked out of church or jailed because there is a shortage of priests. Often they will be put in another church with exactly the same temptations present and very little is done about punishing them. This has only become public knowledge now because people are not fearing damnation if they speak against the church. It has always happened and will continue to unfortunately as long as the institutioon continues in present form.

(And by the way this is only regarding the Catcholic Church, I don't know much about other institutions so try not to feel offended :D)
<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#35 by "RahvinTaka"
2000-05-19 13:20:26
donaldp@mad.scientist.com
I am concerned that there seems to be a whole heap of people defending the idea that sex sells. They seem to think that because it is legal then it a-ok. I ask these people this ... would you be willing to take your mothers, girlfriends and sisters to these shows ? Why not ? ashamed ? And yet it is still ok.

Generally people who tend to defend this type of practice as good are insecure themselves and it gives them a false sense of dominance. I pity them.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#36 by "VeeSPIKE"
2000-05-19 13:26:36
appliedavoidanc@triton.net
<b>#5</b> "Seth Krieg" wrote...
<QUOTE>Tell me the 16 Yearold girl wasn't promoting her body to American Gamers at an American expo where American laws say you may not stick your thingy into a girl until she's old enough to be out of high school. </QUOTE>

First of all, I am not buying her as 16 years old. She just does not look that old, and I mean look at her face. Second, 16 is not illegal in all states, it is the age of consent in many of them. But that is irrelevant as far as this girl in concerned. She is not having sex, at least not with anyone we know. She is modeling at a promotional show advertising a a product that is for sale. In short, she is working. Which, even if she is only 16, is entirely legal, providing she is not serving alcohol. For that, you generally have to be 18.

But again, I don;t buy the fact that people claim she is only 16.

I don't have a problem with the model. She is advertising a product that has as its main component a woman. Granted, the product is being targeted at more prurient interests, but that is not illegal either.

The peepshow on the jumbotron, on the other hand, bnorders on the illegal. Since we can only see the one shot, but showing what might be considered lewd sexual acts at a public event can get one in trouble. And while I am not necessarily against lewd sexual acts (participate as often as I can) I have to ask what is the purpose of showing that? What is it trying to promote? Was there a booth that was displaying Virtual Valerie 2000, or did some techie get his VHS taps confused?

<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#37 by "VeeSPIKE"
2000-05-19 13:40:26
appliedavoidanc@triton.net
<b>#7</b> "Morn" wrote...
<QUOTE>Grrrr... must... kill... all... humans</QUOTE>

THis site would be real boring if you did that.

<b>#9</b> "RedLine" wrote...
<QUOTE>The girl is English, the legal age here is 16, so as far as she is concerned, it is all above board.</QUOTE>

She was not in England. Just to point that out. Not a lawyer, but I assume that if she is not a US citizen, and here on a work visa for the show, that she is subject to US codes and law - provided she is not on British soil (Embassy grounds.) <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#38 by "Serpwidgets"
2000-05-19 14:01:09
serpwidgets@hotmail.com http://people.ce.mediaone.net/serpwidgets/index.ht
<b>#27</b> "Morn" wrote...
<QUOTE>I don't agree. In fact, if you ask me, those two go hand in hand together. After all, there is a reason why "they" chose to put their "booth babes" into bikinis, and not business suits.</QUOTE>

There is quite a large difference between the two.

1) Playboy operates on the principle, "Lots of people like to look at pics of nude women."

2) "Sex sells" type advertising operates on the principle, "Even though my product has absolutely nothing to do with sex or women, you are so fucking stupid that if I show you a picture of a scantily-clad female, and then show you my product nearby, you will actually go out and buy it."

If you can't make the distinction as to which is offensive, then you're past any explanation I can offer.

And yes, just to be clear: I am not implying, I am bluntly stating that if you are a contributor to the truism "sex sells" then you are, by definition, stupid.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#39 by "Morn"
2000-05-19 14:07:33
morn@planetcrap.com http://www.planetcrap.com
<b>#38</b> "Serpwidgets" wrote...
<QUOTE>1) Playboy operates on the principle, "Lots of people like to look at pics of nude women."

2) "Sex sells" type advertising operates on the principle, "Even though my product has absolutely nothing to do with sex or women, you are so fucking stupid that if I show you a picture of a scantily-clad female, and then show you my product nearby, you will actually go out and buy it."</QUOTE>

Here's my version:

1) Playboy "works" because men like titties

2) "Sex sells" type advertising "works" because men like titties

What are we talking about again? ;)

- Morn
<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#40 by "Serpwidgets"
2000-05-19 14:11:05
serpwidgets@hotmail.com http://people.ce.mediaone.net/serpwidgets/index.ht
<b>#39</b> "Morn" wrote...
<QUOTE>2) "Sex sells" type advertising "works" because men like titties

What are we talking about again? ;)
</QUOTE>

Subtle, but it gets the point across well enough. :)<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#41 by "Chango"
2000-05-19 14:23:28
papa_chango@hotmail.com http://www.btinternet.com/~jedi99/
Mr0n: Haven't seen that. What does it show/say?

It was a black and white photo of Jo Guest sat on a stool with just a bra on and some knee-high boots, holding the BattleCruiser box in front of her 'parts'.

ahemmm.


RahvinTaka: "would you be willing to take your mothers, girlfriends and sisters to these shows ? Why
                                                   not ? ashamed ? And yet it is still ok. "

Yes, yes I would.  This isn't porn, ok?  It simply isn't.  There is nothing 'lewd' occuring, nothing remotely "blue" (bare in mind I didn't see the two women 'doing things' so I can't really comment on that).  My wife is intelligent enough to know the difference between sexism and sex promotion.  My Mum is also very open minded to such things and would not be offended.  As for my sister, it wouldn't surprise me if she turned out to be one of the boothe babes herself, so no danger there either.
Of course, I'm not speaking for everyone here, but I think your protective attitude towards sheilding all the females in your family from such trivial matters a little smothering.  Women are intelligent, and can deal with and appraise situations just as well as men.  All they would see upon entering E3 would be BoyToyWorld, and it would be futile to expect anything else form this presently male-oriented industry.

The very same rules apply to the Car shows and bike shows.  You don't ever see a hunky bronzed adonis draped all over the hood of a Lotus Elise, do you?  And why not?  Because market research states that, even if you have both men and women at these shows, when it comes to status symbols and enjoyment factor, it's the man that's holding the cheque book every time.

If this isn't enough for you, then look at it this way:  This <b>ins't</b> going to change, unless it suddenly becomes fashionable to loathe the opposite sex.... sh'yea, right.



-Chango
#42 by "Tyrant"
2000-05-19 14:26:23
http://legit.themushroom.com/20q/mikewilson.html

<QUOTE>
6. How far do you see videogames going? What do you expect them to be like in 10 years, or even 5? What do you see as the "ultimate goal" for video games? Or, the "ultimate game?"

<I>Sex. Virtual masturbation. That's where all other games become irrelevant.</I>
</QUOTE>

Mike Wilson is in the wrong industry...
#43 by "Serpwidgets"
2000-05-19 14:28:35
serpwidgets@hotmail.com http://people.ce.mediaone.net/serpwidgets/index.ht
<b>#28</b> "Chango" wrote...
<QUOTE>If it was instead: 'Frogs Sell", then all you'd see at this years E3 are booth frogs. It's a rediculous analogy, I know, but it really is that simple. Honest!</QUOTE>

Yes, it is that simple. Yet people are obviously so blinded by sex that they go out and buy stuff that said sex had nothing to do with. When it's frogs you have no problem seeing how ridiculous it is, but when it's sex people apparently stop using rational thought.

Since that may offer some insight as to just how stupid or weak we are, and/or easily we can be manipulated, I think it's an issue worth exploring. But that's just classic me, always trying to drag every thread away from the topic. :)<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#44 by "Morn"
2000-05-19 14:30:01
morn@planetcrap.com http://www.planetcrap.com
<b>#41</b> "Chango" wrote...
<QUOTE>Haven't seen that. What does it show/say?</QUOTE>

The torso of a naked woman. How that relates to a Descent clone is beyond me. :)

<b>#41</b> "Chango" wrote...
<QUOTE>The very same rules apply to the Car shows and bike shows.</QUOTE>

See, that's what I'm talking about... computer games trade shows being in the same "league" as car and bike shows is what I'm afraid of.

- Morn
<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#45 by "Serpwidgets"
2000-05-19 14:35:12
serpwidgets@hotmail.com http://people.ce.mediaone.net/serpwidgets/index.ht
<b>#41</b> "Chango" wrote...
<QUOTE>My wife is intelligent enough to know the difference between sexism and sex promotion. My Mum is also very open minded to such things and would not be offended. As for my sister, it wouldn't surprise me if she turned out to be one of the boothe babes herself, so no danger there either.</QUOTE>

Not that it would necessarily be the same thing, but I'd sure love to see the look on your face as you walked into E3 and had a bunch of guys' schlongs and hairy balls swinging in your face everywhere you went.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#46 by "Chango"
2000-05-19 14:48:49
papa_chango@hotmail.com http://www.btinternet.com/~jedi99/
Serpwidgets: "...as you walked into E3 and had a bunch
                                                   of guys' schlongs and hairy balls swinging in your face everywhere you went. "

If I had a dollar for every time someone's said that to me...

I'm sitting here in work just beaming because I can't laugh too loud.... that's cracked me up for the day, Serp.  Cheers!
#47 by "RedLine"
2000-05-19 14:49:31
[30] Morn

<quote>Do you remember the box art of Forsaken?</quote>

Unfortunately (For your example), in the UK, the Forsaken box just had a really big letter "F" on the front, with some game screenshots on the back.

[37] VeeSPIKE

Please try to understand what I am saying... I'll refrain from profanity at the moment.

Girl is 16.  Girl comes from a culture where the legal age is 16.  <B>IN HER MIND</B>, girl is quite happy that what she is doing is acceptable to her culture.

Of course if she's in the USA she's damn well under US <I>law</I>.  I'm talking about morally... in the UK we grow up knowing that when we reach 16 we can have sex and light up a ciggy afterwards.... and we are comfortable with that.

Now, the topic (And some comments) sounded as if they were blaming the <B>girl</B> for dressing suggestively, basically calling her a slut, and all I was doing was pointing out that as far as she is concerned her behaviour is acceptable.

To someone conditioned to a higher age of sexual consent, yes it would seem "disturbing" that a "child" is dressing so suggestively, but the fact is this "child" is a "woman" in her own mind.

Not too hard to understand, now is it. ;-)
#48 by "Chango"
2000-05-19 14:54:50
papa_chango@hotmail.com http://www.btinternet.com/~jedi99/
Mr0n: The torso of a naked woman. How that relates to a Descent clone is beyond me. :)

-It doesn't relate, I just thought I'd tell ya about it :)


Mr0n: See, that's what I'm talking about... computer games trade shows being in the same "league" as car and bike shows is what I'm afraid of.


- Mr0n, it's unavoidable.  I'm surprised you are fighting to keep these two or three markets apart, when at the end of the day it all falls into the category of Toys For The Boys.  It's all machinery, power, wattage, resolution, revs per minute, xmillion calculations per whatever, metallic finish, plasma-screen... etcetc.
  They might as well be the same market - they've always been this close to each other, this isn't something that has just appeared because a couple of  sorts have been swinging their arses in peoples face at a computer trade show.
#49 by "Chango"
2000-05-19 14:58:06
papa_chango@hotmail.com http://www.btinternet.com/~jedi99/
On a sidenote, did anyone who acually went to E3 see whether or not Killcreek was <b>performing</b> on the Daikatana stand?

hehe
#50 by "RedLine"
2000-05-19 14:59:38
[47] RedLine

Argh, before some other (Besides myself ;-)) anal retentive points it out, I'm gonna point it out myself... I said:

<quote>...and all I was doing was pointing out that as far as she is concerned her behaviour is acceptable.</quote>

No, I don't know the girl personally.  No I don't know what she is thinking.  Perhaps I should have said "<B>IF</B> the girl finds her behaviour acceptable, it will be because her culture now gives her the right to have sex"

[36] VeeSPIKE

Someone posted her birthday as being July 1983, which means she will be <B>17</B> in like two months.

And just because you cannot judge age correctly doesn't make the point any more or less valid.  When I was 14 I could get into 18-rated movies at the cinema without the clerk even blinking... when I was 16 I could get into 18-only clubs by just sighing and going "Yeesss" as if I was fed up with the question, <B>if</B> the bouncer asked me at all.

And it is supposed to be easier for girls to look older, stick some makeup on and do their hair <I>just so</I> and it's very difficult to tell.
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Eidos Soliloquy: Part one

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
P O S T   A   C O M M E N T

You need to be logged in to post a comment here. If you don't have an account yet, you can create one here. Registration is free.
C R A P T A G S
Simple formatting: [b]bold[/b], [i]italic[/i], [u]underline[/u]
Web Links: [url=www.mans.de]Cool Site[/url], [url]www.mans.de[/url]
Email Links: [email=some@email.com]Email me[/email], [email]some@email.com[/email]
Simple formatting: Quoted text: [quote]Yadda yadda[/quote]
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details]