The Big Picture: In Defense of "Booth Babes" (sort of)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Strazdas:
The whole "booth babe" problem is that such know-nothing-but-look-good shouldnt even exist in conventions. regardless if its a gamer convention or a car traders one. they bring absolutely no added value.
And it has nothing to do with fake nerds girls
There are both fake nerd girls and fake nerd boys. and the key word here is fake. As in, one that isnt actually a nerd. and it has nothing to do with being pretty. It has to do with being "Attention whore".
And no, they dont need another name. because whether we call them botoh babes, models or even alien overlords, does not change the fact they shoulnt be there.
What should be there are spokeperson - as in a person who actually knows and can tell about the thing and not just look pretty.

But that's implying that gaming conventions are anything of value, you just got a bunch of people trying to sell you shiny shit, they're all one big advertisement. A couple of scantily clad men/women aren't going to take your precious video games away. And 'nerd hobbies' is no longer some secret club house type thing, people really need to disperse with the elitism, It's like I have to show you my 6000 hours wasted on steam just to get some rep around here.

Man this episode just makes me want to play lolipop chainsaw.

DerangedHobo:
But that's implying that gaming conventions are anything of value, you just got a bunch of people trying to sell you shiny shit, they're all one big advertisement.

Not all of them.

PAX, for example, although it has commercial areas (which are tightly quarantined), also has a bunch of activities such as panels and concerts that have nothing to do with selling you shiny shit.

The backlash against booth babes is the result of a perfect storm of jackasses trying to push their views on the industry. Long read ahead of what I understood the motives behind that backlash.

On one side you have the classic gaming nerd sort. These people have watched their hobby and fandom be pulled into the mainstream and then slowly changed and pandered to the wider audience. What often made their hobby enjoyable has been steadily removed in the name of industry claims of "wider appeal" and the like. This says nothing of gaming's previous scorned status, the usual magnetism outsiders have towards games as a way to feel a sense of culture and community and a means to take pride in outsider status, as well as the constant attack the hobby has endured by political demagogues and religious asshats. Seeing the newcoming, more casual and accepted group of gamers, they put two and two together and blame this rise of gaming into mainstream culture and all subsequent pandering on the newcomers. A segment that has not had to put up with the crap they had, who do not share the same degree of passion and who outside of their enjoyment of games are otherwise the same sort who ignored if not outright mocked and attacked the hobby not long ago. The usually isolated group of gamers often then closes ranks even more and starts viewing people as invaders and cultural appropriation, with the most easily visible ones all the more quickly disowned, if not attacked. This started the whole "fake geek girl" mentality I imagine.

On the other you have a growing segment of gamers wanting the medium to grow and develop, to push out of the isolated mindset, be more accepted and be take seriously as a mature art form and entertainment. They see much of the industry's attitude towards customers as revealing how little they think of their customers, and quickly point out such behavior as bad for gaming as a whole. A cancer to be marked and removed. A large one often attacked is business practices that try to milk customers of money rather then treat games as a form of viable entertainment if not art. As such advertisement that reduces a game, even a good one, to cheap pandering is looked down on when not outright attacked as merely being a way the company is trying to borderline scam people out of money, especially true with products that are otherwise complete crap.

Add both of these mindsets, and one of the few things they agree on is that the booth babe doesn't fit. The first see them as a representation of the very sort of person who is changing their hobby. They know little to nothing of the hobby, are paid to be there and are surrogate for the countless "fake" gamers out there who have contaminated something they love and are slowly destroying things they care about strongly. The booth babes represent someone who should not be around their hobby. This is often not even because they are attractive but rather because they lack the same passion and dedication yet are trying to still sell you a product. The events are no longer geeks and nerds trying to share a passion and sell you on something they love (even if the passion is fake), but a full blown "shut up and listen to the sexy model" bit of advertising that has been done to death in every other form of media. Games are treated as nothing special, just one of another sort of money making. And while they may always have been so, the booth babes represent the epitome of industry no longer even caring enough to put on the illusion, no longer seeming like the same sort of geeks that the core gamer thinks they are.

The second see the booth babes as the height of industry scorn and pandering. The industry only sees gamers as horny stupid easily distracted teenage males, thus displays of skin by models catering to exactly that idea are harmful towards making games as a whole better. They represent an older time in gaming history and beg the question of how games can be taken seriously as an art and entertainment if all anyone ever sees is industry pandering and sexy models. Thus something should be done to force the industry to not resort to the lowest common denominator in advertisement and instead stand more on their own merit, rather then who they can fit in what skimpy outfit.

While there is obvious flaws with the mindsets above, that mix does seem what fueled most of the resentment and derision towards the booth babe phenomenon. Not sexist (for most gamers), not resentful towards the models themselves even, but what they represent, be it the ever growing pandering to a casual gaming audience because games are the latest in a long line of subcultures that have been pulled into the mainstream and bastardized or because they represent the pinnacle of industry resentment and dismissal of both the audience and games as an art or entertainment form beyond just making as much money as they can out of every property or game.

There is a correlation between the industry's steady alienation of their own core players through bad practices such as more and more visible greed and trying to make all major releases so same; and the rise of the disgruntled and assholy gamer retort towards perceived "outsiders".

TL:DR
the isolationist outsider gaming subset and the optimistic, wants-games-treated-like-mature-art gaming subset both agreed with each other that it was bad for paid female models to be used for the purpose of pandering just for cheap attention and easy advertising, albeit for different reasons.

Comparing this to fake geek girl is a weak shot.

I mean you know the models are only there to sell you something, they didn't buy a ticket and are only there as eye candy, so there's a not insignificant chance that they don't care about the games, since caring about them isn't necessarily part of their job description. Not that it really matters though, because even if they do love the games you should be a bit weary about people trying to sell you something, even if you know they like games or whatever.

Now if you want to pull that shit on a woman who bought a ticket yeah fine I'll agree that's stupid.

Calling this misogyny just seems a bit unfair. Calling someone a booth babe who isn't a booth babe as an insult might be depending on the circumstance but as a general insult to the profession, calling it misogynist is just bullshit.

edit: unless you mean the way in which it's misused. I can't tell, whenever I hear undercurrent of msiogny/whatever I always think that that's their way of implying that everyone who disagrees is a misogynist/whatever.

And maybe it's because I live in California and hear babe tossed around all the time but I don't see how the term is dehumanizing at all.

Although just using that as an insult for any woman who dresses like that even if they aren't a paid model is bad, I agree with you on that.

varmintx:
Drinking game! Every time someone uses the term "white knight" in this thread. You people need some more catch phrases to make your reductive opinions not so repetitive.

Ok then let's also have a drink every time "misogyny" is used for a situation where the people don't hate women, like this one. I'm sure that would cover at least 90% of the instances. You people need more of an argument than just mindlessly calling people bigoted.

Merklyn236:
MovieBob, I think you hit the nail on the head when you talked about everyone rushing in to address the symptoms of the problem (in this case, latent misogyny present is the gaming community) instead of actually trying to FIX the real problem. Of course, that's because the symptoms can easily be fixed by rules ("We're going to ban 'booth babes' from the convention, because we want to be gender inclusive" instead of "Um, people, maybe we should do a better job of being an inclusive gaming society here. You think? Maybe? Hello?"
!

Except people argue that we should get rid of booth babes because they think it would make things more inclusive. Guess it's not that simple and you can't look down on people for not trying to fix it.

Oh and unless you have specifics 'be more inclusive' is a really vague and useless thing to say. Nobody is trying to keep women or whover from playing their games because hey money's money

I don't like booth babes because I hate being pandered to in that way.

Even if the stars align I feel like buying a game for the T&A I know those models aren't actually going to be in the game.

Oh and who actually says these spaces belong to men? I don't care about fake geek girls but even I can tell that that's a straw man you're setting up and it just seems like you're not arguing in good faith.

ellieallegro:
Personally, I find it sad that the vast majority of people can't seem to separate or tell the difference between "the actual person" and the job/entertainment personality they play a part of or do.

Could you elaborate please. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Thanks.

MB202:
I like the thumbnail of this episode, with Charlie Brown getting advice/psychological help from Lucy! XP

I also like how this episode is a nice follow-up to Jim Sterling's Jimquisition episode about a woman who DARED to write for video games and who DARED to have an opinion about video game

I like how you people always resort to giant straw men so you can call everyone bigots. That's like saying the only beef anyone had with Anita was that she was a women. Which unfortunately some people actually try to argue.

And since someone's probably going to bring it up no I don't think the threats were OK but lying about the motivations behind it does nobody any favors.

xaszatm:

uanime5:

MB202:
I also like how this episode is a nice follow-up to Jim Sterling's Jimquisition episode about a woman who DARED to write for video games and who DARED to have an opinion about video game get death threats about her kids. I.E., it's another episode that shouldn't have to exist but because gaming culture is in a major rut at the moment, some things need to be spelled out.

Actually she got death threats because her writing was so bad that she ruined several games and made it clear that she hated video games that were interactive in any way. You can't keep screwing games up while having an anti-game attitude without expecting repercussions from gamers.

1st off, she was involved in two games and you are taking her interview horribly out of context. I know that others have called you up on these points but you don't seem to grasp the point so I won't bother.

2nd, someone named her children, what school they went to, talk about specific private events she attended, and then threatened to kill her children. This isn't a "meaningless death threat" that happens normally on the internet. That is a very scary and personal attack and from the context, it seemed likely that this person was in a position to seriously hurt this woman's family and life.

3rd, WHY IS SUCH ATTITUDES CONSIDERED ACCEPTABLE? There is a fine line between "I don't think your idea has any merit and here are a list of reasons why" and "I will kill your children!" The first is fine, the second isn't. How hard is it to understand?

This is the perfect example why these threads always turn south.

At no point in this post did he say these were meaningless threats or that they were OK. Everyone gets so caught up in taking sides that the minute he disagrees with part of a post complaining about the threats then he must be ok with them. It infects both sides too.

TAdamson:

Monxeroth:
image

Yeah from the very first paragraphs of the script to this video, all faith is lost already that it will have some coherent and or intelligent thing to say, add or even make some kind of attempt at a reasonable discussion with different views and also counterarguments presented and talked about.

Alright, see ya next week i guess...

"Oh no! A person is suggesting that people should afford trade show models respect as human beings even if they do not respect the work that they do. Even takes the sex-positive stance that states that if the work is there to do it's not the person doing the work at fault, or even that that work is a bad thing."

"Then goes further suggesting that the offhand labeling of women in industry as "borderline" or "glorified booth babes" is pretty grossly sexist!!!"

"Quick!!!! invalidate this quite reasonable premise by invoking the label "White knight" Then we can safely not listen to his opinion!!!!"

"Phew!!! That's lucky. Can't let this feminism stuff get out or soon there will be girl germs on our 'Call of Dutys' and 'Street Fightereses' "

Someone had a problem with something Bob said. I know let's pretend he must also have a problem with the least controversial aspects of it. There's no way he has a problem with calling the term booth babes 'dehumanizing' or anything like that.

Honestly I know he didn't go into specifics but why jump to 'oh it must've been the treat them like human part'. That's just arguing in bad faith.

Booth Babes as a concept in of itself have never bothered me, the problem has never lied with their existence but how people treat and respond to their existence. Gross socially fucked guys mistreat them and idiots are too easily swayed by companies using them to realize how devious the "come look at our thing cause we have a pretty lady here" marketing gimmick is.

It still doesn't stop the job in of itself being a legit one, if a pretty lady can easily be paid to stand around and look pretty then good for her. If I was a particularly handsome guy and I could get paid to stand around for a couple hours fuck yeah I'd get on that shit. Would people then bitch about booth-doods then? if that was a thing? lol

Maybe that's the problem, less ladies more half naked doods standing around and then everyone's happy haha

Is there really this big of a problem with women in games? I've never seen any of this kind of thoughtless crap happening.

While I do at times feel like Bob is preaching to the choir with the Big Picture when it runs on a topic like this. I am not one of the people who needs be told the merits or how to respect another human being. It's something I naturally do(at least in real life anyways. I will say I have a persona of being some what argumentative online but mostly because I like playing Devil's advocate and not simply following the herd but that's another subject.), but I do understand I am not the norm. Some people might need a moment to possibly reflect on the notion their own crap stinks and need this.

That said I don't need or feel gaming has some sort of obligation to prove it has this maturity or seal of approval from it's big brothers in media. (such as movies and it's critics.) I think anyone trying to chase that is making games for the wrong reasons anyways even if we somehow do have to be the bigger person in this world. I think if that bridge needs be crossed it will come simply out of people doing what is natural and the need to grow as they make things they want to make. This a very young genre still and really lacked the tools to make story telling a larger part of it till recently. I don't think people have even truly realized the strengths of it as they seem to want to make movies in games rather than make games that have great story telling in them using the aspects of what makes gaming unique and different from other mediums. Tons of words(spoken or written), large words , or long cutscenes aren't the power of gaming. experiencing something is, and I think that mindset will be what set gaming apart and establishes it as an art. Not just mimicking the hallmarks of what works in other aspects of the world but gimmicks are always easier to copy than quality.

If gaming cons want to have girls stand around at them or not doesn't matter to me. I'm glad to have attendees that are easier on the eyes, but I go to cons to enjoy the entire experience not just ogle women. I'm not part of the She kicks high target audience DOA 3 ad campaign. These women are being paid for their time and they have a choice to be there or not. That said I don't think that somehow gives anyone the right to talk down to them for it.(People seem think moment when I am at my place of work I somehow am a secondary class of being and talk down to me, so I think it's something collectively wrong with the human condition than limited solely to woman and gaming. You are a servant the moment you are getting paid and they have the right to dole out whatever they like to you.)

I don't feel females or any one who is a fan or simply shows up at a convention of any sort needs prove they're worthy like they're lifting Thor's hammer to attend. May be they re new to the experience. May be they will warm up to it if we aren't a bunch of jerks who drive them off from it despite not being there for the reasons you came the first couple times. I just think to myself, who am I to tell them who can and can't be here? There's enough room in this world for all sorts of people to show up. Until there isn't then I say the more the merrier.

DerangedHobo:
Why can't we have cute boys at booths? As Jim Sterling once said, if you want to have equality, HAVE SCANTILY CLAD HAVE NAKED MEN AS WELL AS SCANTILY CLAD HALF NAKED WOMEN.
Then everyone can be a little bit more uncomfortable and the feminists can shut the fuck up.

Woman and men are not programmed by evolution to want/look for/desire the same thing in mates. Men look for youth and good health (and pretty/beautiful tends to correlate pretty highly for both). Women, on the other hand, since they are stuck with child rearing, don't care so much for the young and pretty eye candy man. Not that they don't appreciate it, just that their brains aren't quite "juiced" the same way by a handsome man. Women want good providers with strong genes who can take care of themselves and the woman. It's not like this is even contemplated or thought about- it goes on in the brain of both sexes without either having to think about it.

tl;dr having "Booth Boys" or "Booth Bros" isn't going to have even a fraction of the same effect as a Booth Babe on a man.

DerangedHobo:

Strazdas:
The whole "booth babe" problem is that such know-nothing-but-look-good shouldnt even exist in conventions. regardless if its a gamer convention or a car traders one. they bring absolutely no added value.
And it has nothing to do with fake nerds girls
There are both fake nerd girls and fake nerd boys. and the key word here is fake. As in, one that isnt actually a nerd. and it has nothing to do with being pretty. It has to do with being "Attention whore".
And no, they dont need another name. because whether we call them botoh babes, models or even alien overlords, does not change the fact they shoulnt be there.
What should be there are spokeperson - as in a person who actually knows and can tell about the thing and not just look pretty.

But that's implying that gaming conventions are anything of value, you just got a bunch of people trying to sell you shiny shit, they're all one big advertisement. A couple of scantily clad men/women aren't going to take your precious video games away. And 'nerd hobbies' is no longer some secret club house type thing, people really need to disperse with the elitism, It's like I have to show you my 6000 hours wasted on steam just to get some rep around here.

Yes it is. I am hopeless in believing that gaming ocnventions has more value that people lieing, showing of big boobs and taking pictures of sexy cosplays. Silly me for believing that a convention can actually bring something of value. Sure they are not taking the games away. but they are not allowing me to get any knowledge about them when people who are supposed to know about them are actually just models who dont even know the name of main character.
The whoel concept of "nerd hobbies" is wrong but this is a different topic.

also (and you do have to realize this is a joke):
ha 6000 hours newfag lol

burn in the glory of 11700 hours you noobs!

Mr. Gray:
Is there really this big of a problem with women in games? I've never seen any of this kind of thoughtless crap happening.

Oh, it happens. Have you ever been to a gaming convention? There are countless companies who will hire women solely for their appearance and sex appeal to attract male customers.

Apparently in my limited online gaming experience (mostly L4D(2) campaigns) I've not encountered so many of the typical phrases and statements that Bob has.

Allow me to share my limited experience:

In E3 2K (that is the Electronic Entertainment Expo during the year 2000) they were called Booth Bunnies particularly since someone with a yellow logo (Outpost.com?) specifically hired Playboy BunniesTM to walk around topless with bumper stickers pasted across their chests. It was conspicuous and it was distracting.

Booth Bunnies was the term used for all the human window dressing, including Eidos' countless Lara Croft clones go-go-dancing at their display. I and my fellow developers didn't think disparagingly of the poor girls (who were probably being paid a pittance to stand and smile on the floor) but of the companies that hired them. The uniformity of the show was uncanny: The quantity of human distractions was inversely proportional to the quantity of substantive material (e.g. games far enough along to be displayed).

Gothic and Simpsons Wrestling were something of exceptions. Gothic's floor show featured male and female models in various fantasy costumes that were clearly Boris-Vallejo-inspired, but not egregiously scanty. (The game itself was in mid-alpha.) And Simpsons Wrestling featured full mascot suits of various characters, but there were no demos, only video of the game to come. Those guys get credit for having models related to their games, rather than what was (in most cases) pure cheesecake.

To be fair, we geeks weren't the target audience for the bunnies. That honor went to representatives of distributorships that, in turn, provided games to the brick-and-mortar boutiques (EB, GS and CompUSA were all in business at the time). They dressed in suits. They didn't play games, rather they thought of games as a niche commodity that had gotten trendy. To them, their customer base were kids and losers who still lived with their mothers. These representatives weren't game enthusiasts. They couldn't understand the XBox demo and what the thing with the mousetraps and ping-pong balls meant. They didn't understand why Warcraft III was a big deal. They didn't care to talk to developers, because they couldn't understand the developers.

But the distro-reps loved them some floor models in costume. That was their tonic. That was the thing they could understand. And that was what they hoped to score with in the after-show parties (to which you were invited if you were a somebody who represented a hundred storefronts). The whole thing stank of objectification and exploitation. To be honest, I don't know. What does a gig like E3 pay for their floor models? As much as one of the marketing staff? As much as a distribution rep? Probably more than I was, as a dev, but I know I was exploited.

Since 2000, I understand (I haven't returned) E3 has featured fewer floor models. I don't remember any at GDC. Marketing has also been more aimed at press and enthusiast culture, so it all seems to correlate.

When I think of Booth Bunnies, I still think of the topless PlaymatesTM who clearly wished they were allowed more clothes than they had, and seemed rather creeped out by all the oggly and sometimes gropey businessmen. (I believe an assault charge was pressed in one case.) I remember the reps who disparaged gamer nerds while taking each other's pictures with models. I remember some poor girl in an Arabian nights outfit desperate not to be noticed as she dragged on a cigarette. I remember wondering to myself if being a convention floor model was something of employment of desperation: would these women have done the job to afford some luxuries, if they didn't have to worry about eating or paying rent?

It just didn't seem like it.

238U

I love watching MovieBob's stuff, in fact, I usually look forward to both this show and his 'Escape to the movies' show but lately, I don't know, it seems like he has attached himself to specific issues and personal beliefs and perhaps not in the best way.

I won't get into my issues with his film reviews lately (just how many times can he throw Man of steel under a bus out of pure spite?) but I have noticed that Bob has started to push REALLY hard on the whole sexism in gaming angle, I can't put my finger on it but when I watched this video, it really kinda jumped out at me.

Now, put away your pitchforks and hear me out, I will never say that gaming does not have a gender problem, I think that there are a lot of things we as gamers need to work on to make gaming a better place for both genders but lets not start jumping to conclusions either, not everything can be broken down neatly into "sexist" and "not-sexist".

Lets take the booth babe issue, I personally don't like them, let me rephrase, I don't like the concept of them, I don't like that they are considered a viable way to sell a product at a trade show in lieu of actually just presenting a impressive product that can turn heads on it's own, I have gone to conventions where it was clear that the booth babes were there only to play on the fact that I am a male, almost assuming that I am some sort of salivating teenager who can't control my sexual impulses, heck, I could even say that the assumption that I am controlled entirely by my sexual impulses could easily be construed as sexism in itself.

The booth babe debate is not rooted entirely in misogyny, in fact, I would be willing to bet that sexism has very little to do with the overall negative view that gamers have about them.

Now, I have seen the term "white knight" thrown around in some of the comments here, personally, I can't say I entirely disagree, this video would have been great but once he pulled the "misogyny" concept in, it started to feel like, I don't know, it just felt so automatic, so obligatory.

I don't understand why someone would have problem with that Booth Babes. It is a fucking job. People have to earn their living in some way. If you don't like Booth Babes, here is a tip for you: Don't look at them.

Fuck the work they do, fuck the people who hire them, and fuck the guys who hate them for sexist reasons instead of perfectly legit reasons.

MacNille:
I don't understand why someone would have problem with that Booth Babes. It is a fucking job. People have to earn their living in some way. If you don't like Booth Babes, here is a tip for you: Don't look at them.

My concern is that it is the sort of job that exists specifically because people have to earn their living in some way.

In the early nineties girls in the USSR dreamed of becoming a wage prostitute because that's where the money was (i.e. more than the same level of destitute that defined most lives.) Going into the sex trade was something like going into the drug trade here in the US. It's a way to make a good living, even if it's exactly opposite of the kind of work you want to do.

As a friend of mine pointed out, being a floor model has all the worst parts of being a fast-food clerk and being a stripper rolled into a single job. It really is a position of last resort.

238U

MacNille:
It is a fucking job.

It's a job that shouldn't exist.

I like when Moviebob makes the point that it's a symbol of how little the industry thinks of us.

Let me put it this way.

Actors, speakers, public persona, singers, politicians... every single job that include strong public presence, is to some extent chosen on sex appeal. It's human nature. And it's universal for both genders, only difference is how we like out "targets" presented.

For some it's degrading. I understand that, but don't do it then. On the other side, there are people who really like getting exposed an ogled upon. I refuse to judge either of them, and i will always give myself liberty to question people which hold themselves superior enough to limit acceptable jobs or behavior for others.

carnex:

Actors, speakers, public persona, singers, politicians... every single job that include strong public presence, is to some extent chosen on sex appeal. It's human nature. And it's universal for both genders, only difference is how we like out "targets" presented.

There's a huge difference between actors, politicians, etc. and models. At its best, acting is an art. At its best, politics aims to improve society. Even at its worst, politics and acting try to serve some useful purpose.

Modelling is just decoration. It's completely shallow. Even the worst politicians have some goal other than just being scenery.

Aardvaarkman:

carnex:

Actors, speakers, public persona, singers, politicians... every single job that include strong public presence, is to some extent chosen on sex appeal. It's human nature. And it's universal for both genders, only difference is how we like out "targets" presented.

There's a huge difference between actors, politicians, etc. and models. At its best, acting is an art. At its best, politics aims to improve society. Even at its worst, politics and acting try to serve some useful purpose.

Modelling is just decoration. It's completely shallow. Even the worst politicians have some goal other than just being scenery.

Then you have no idea how much skill good "booth babe" brings to the table. Like most people don't anyway. It's bloody hard to be likable to everyone, hold your own in conversation on subject you have very limited knowledge on etc. it's hard work and best girls are in high demand. Not best looking, but best "Booth Babe".

And when you can score one that is attractive, skillful and genuinely interested in subject you hit jackpot. So, it's not all looks and smiles.

But even if it was, so what? Can't a person make a choice on their own?

Meanwhile in the MOBA community, at the Dota 2 Intertional 3, everyone praises a pundit, the genuine Soe for being a cute, knowledgeable girl, and Kaci, one of the presenters, a professional, good looking woman, with no prior knowledge of Dota, as a great presenter and interviewer, learning about the game from her work at the event.

carnex:

Then you have no idea how much skill good "booth babe" brings to the table. Like most people don't anyway. It's bloody hard to be likable to everyone, hold your own in conversation on subject you have very limited knowledge on etc. it's hard work and best girls are in high demand. Not best looking, but best "Booth Babe".

Totally missed the point. The "Booth Babe," no matter how good they are, is just there to sell stuff. Artists and politicians are supposed to have a higher purpose than that.

Let's throw out the "booth babe" term and just think of salespeople. Being a good salesperson can certainly be a demanding talent. But at the end of the day, they're still just a salesperson.

To quote you

Aardvaarkman:

Modelling is just decoration. It's completely shallow.

That is all.

Once again, it is up to people to deal with what comes with the work they choose. Now it is important to remember that video gaming culture is very low information (as Rush would say) on average. That's something that could change, but if you want to be a model, I always thought that your job was to be objectified and to draw in a crowd to whatever you're advertising.

In turn, those who want to be jerks or lugheads make comments and objectify the model, and the models that don't have a stiff upper lip and integrity take it to heart and can't deal with it. All that needs to happen is for people to grow up, deal with the natural unfairness of life, and to learn personal responsibility for one's actions.

So you have no issue with them, but just in the name? A bunch of half naked women outside a Cod both is bad, but half naked women outside a booth showing a game where the character is a half naked women is good? Is booth babes really a term used as a negative fashion? They are just woman that are used to get mens attention. Thats it. The companies have no problem hiring them. An the woman themselves have no problem doing the job and they get paid well for doing it. They already know they are just eye candy. An whats so wrong with that?

LadyRhian:

DerangedHobo:
Why can't we have cute boys at booths? As Jim Sterling once said, if you want to have equality, HAVE SCANTILY CLAD HAVE NAKED MEN AS WELL AS SCANTILY CLAD HALF NAKED WOMEN.
Then everyone can be a little bit more uncomfortable and the feminists can shut the fuck up.

Woman and men are not programmed by evolution to want/look for/desire the same thing in mates. Men look for youth and good health (and pretty/beautiful tends to correlate pretty highly for both). Women, on the other hand, since they are stuck with child rearing, don't care so much for the young and pretty eye candy man. Not that they don't appreciate it, just that their brains aren't quite "juiced" the same way by a handsome man. Women want good providers with strong genes who can take care of themselves and the woman. It's not like this is even contemplated or thought about- it goes on in the brain of both sexes without either having to think about it.

tl;dr having "Booth Boys" or "Booth Bros" isn't going to have even a fraction of the same effect as a Booth Babe on a man.

Ok well get a bunch of rich looking providers to stand around with booths as well as the booth babes.
Problem solved.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here