Eurogamer Expo Bans Booth Babes

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Tenmar:
So, let's get this straight.

We will not allow men and women who aspire in their career to be models and building their portfolio and help earn a living and develop a career. Also, apparently due to how risky these models dress and given the demographic we must have it remain child friendly because someone must think of the children.

Yep it's official, the video game industry now has a religious right enforcing their morality.

Oh all the overblown, overly dramatic hyperbole. You have got to be kidding me. You can twist words any way you want to here and in all your other posts, but you're defending companies that use scantily clad women who have nothing to do with the video game industry to try to sell their products. And in this instance, women with bar codes printed on their asses, which is basically screaming "women are objects" whose sexuality can be reduced to selling products.

If your product is any good at all you don't need booth babes...just saying

BiH-Kira:

Frankster:

Oskuro:
I'm with the idea of, rather than banning, enforcing an equal amount of booth-studs. :D

+1 Have buff guys with just a belt of ammo covering their privates for advertising shooter games to balance it all out.

Do I smell a petition starting?
We need to make this happen as soon as possible.

You mean a petition to justify keeping booth babes while pretending to care about equality by throwing some half-naked guys in the mix. Newsflash: objectifying men and women is bad. Having both be equally objectified does not solve the problem. But I'm guessing that the only reason any one would petition for this sort of thing is because they don't want the booth babes to go and need to half-assedly justify their position.

People are actually upset that people can't go "Check out our game TITS TITS TITS!"? Really? Frankly no, it's not like cosplaying, because they're not trying to have fun, they're flaunting everything that they have just so that they can attract customers, seriously alienating female gamers in the process. For fuck's sake, we've got the internet for porn. I think this is Eurogamer's way of going "grow the fuck up" and I agree.

I honestly don't mind em beein taken off from the booths.

Honestly? I go there for the games, not some T & A Presented by a Company.
If I wanted T & , I'd go to a beach party or a strip club... or something like that.

And the Argument "Europe is turning into a right wing Catholic blah...blah...blah...".
Nope! They are private and have every right. Otherwise I'd say, we got a bit more class usually then THAT, but then I'd look over to the "Essen Motor Show" and would feel ashamed.

And let's just say: every step away from the eye catcher kind of marketing for the freaky virgin type of nerdy gamer, the better.

We got the internet, it ain't like theres a deficit of juicy Ladys. :P

And as for the Cosplayers: Thats defenatly a different kind of story, since those are at least in touch with the subject, unlike most of those booth babes.

I've talked to Booth Babes at E3, most of them are models/actresses who like working the conventions(and it not just gaming) because it is a steady income, which can be tough in LA.

I'm completely okay with this decision not because I hate booth babes, they're sexy as hell, but because I'd rather have game companies sell their game based on things like graphics, story, and gameplay.

while i cant really say that i condone, or rather understand using booth babes , because we live in the era of the internet, i can just look at the naked ladies anytime i want to if i want to or go out and date a lady person (why are strip clubs still a thing) or if i was even more bold, get a call girl.

i do however, understand they they have a right to do the whole booth babe thing, a lot LOT of other facets of entertainment uses the "sex sells" moniker, so why would you make this illegal if other companies can do it or products, hell even that show glee had some of the actor in sexy school girl outfits for a magazine shoot.

while i wouldnt mind taking the whole sex sells aspect away, i wouldn't have devil may cry, certain comic book characters, bayonetta, and some other things i enjoy, because the fact that those characters are "sexy" (except new Dante, that's just...eug...eat a damn sandwich,work out, and take a bath) and that may sell to someplace, shirtless ripped dude in a red jacket and a sword, kicking ass *shrugs*

i know this is a convention banning this, but i still feel as though its hypocritical in away, in an industry who is constantly being restricted of selling places because how its presents itself.

while i may not understand it , i have to accept that they should be able to have booth babes, because to take that right away from them , is kinda wrong.

i probably have more thoughts on this but i cant think of them at the moment, but this is how i look at it anyway, feel free to debate im always up for having my world view challenged.

NightowlM:

BiH-Kira:

Frankster:

+1 Have buff guys with just a belt of ammo covering their privates for advertising shooter games to balance it all out.

Do I smell a petition starting?
We need to make this happen as soon as possible.

You mean a petition to justify keeping booth babes while pretending to care about equality by throwing some half-naked guys in the mix. Newsflash: objectifying men and women is bad. Having both be equally objectified does not solve the problem. But I'm guessing that the only reason any one would petition for this sort of thing is because they don't want the booth babes to go and need to half-assedly justify their position.

I don't think objectifying someone is bad. If a person wants to be objectified, go on, do it. It's her/his decision, not yours.

Also, some of us are gay and would like to look at nice looking halfnaked men. And I was joking. I would rather have developer or people who know something about the games give me information than to look at men/women.

NightowlM:
[Shnippy, das kleine Krokodil]

You mean a petition to justify keeping booth babes while pretending to care about equality by throwing some half-naked guys in the mix. Newsflash: objectifying men and women is bad. Having both be equally objectified does not solve the problem. But I'm guessing that the only reason any one would petition for this sort of thing is because they don't want the booth babes to go and need to half-assedly justify their position.

Woah, generalise much?

[unimportant bit]I personally don't see the big appeal in booth-babes, if I want to look at a female form for sexual arousal then I'll just go full-on and look at pornography: the same reason I don't understand strip clubs. Why pepper sexuality throughout your day and just suffered a prolonged blueballing experience?[/unimportant bit]

What's wrong with objectifying people if they have no problem being objectified? When I couldn't see my girlfriend at the time for a couple of months and she asked me to go on Skype and get naked for her, I imagine she wasn't looking at my beaming personality. She was objectifying me and I certainly enjoyed the attention. Similarly, when people get naked or semi-naked so a group of people can look at them then they are either enjoying the attention or don't mind the attention due to some other reward at the end of it all. What's so wrong with that?

I don't see what's wrong with objectifying people who want to objectified - you can't possibly argue that the gaming community is full of people so impressionable that seeing any woman dress up for the male gaze means that they're going to assume that all women serve no other purpose than this?

Sure, sex shouldn't be used to sell unrelated products - but it will be anyway because it works. We're never going to get rid of objectifying attractive individuals without pushing ourselves back through another sexually repressed Victorian Age and I certainly would rather be happy and comfortable in my sexuality rather than have to feel guilty because I occasionally see a woman for something other than their personality.

Agree with the idea that there should be less both babes, don't like how they did it. IDK what the perfect way to do it is..... but there should still be room for the DOA:Beach Volleyball games.
There should be less of those games than there are currently, but they should still be allowed and not be discriminated against.

scw55:
snip

Reading through the other comments, i was under the impression the whole "ban the booth totties to protect the kids" was just ane excuse?

Either way, dont agree with any restriction on the matter, ive seen how crazy shameless cosplayers can get, so if its the sight of naked flesh thats the problem, banning the "booth totties" (am liking that expression btw :P) then this wont fix much, youll still have all kind of cosplayers running around.

Cmon, ive seen obese guys in very tight and revealing outfit. Dont tell me that is more appropriate and acceptable then a sexually attractive person (whether male or female)in skimpy clothing just because one is getting paid whereas the other one is doing it for kicks.

NightowlM:

You mean a petition to justify keeping booth babes while pretending to care about equality by throwing some half-naked guys in the mix. Newsflash: objectifying men and women is bad. Having both be equally objectified does not solve the problem. But I'm guessing that the only reason any one would petition for this sort of thing is because they don't want the booth babes to go and need to half-assedly justify their position.

Weird my inbox didnt alert me to this, almost missed to reply this.

Mmm, you clearly have your loaded generalizations and am guessing we have had VERY different life experiences for our conclusions to be so different but disagree with you on just about every level.
Its equality all right, you have buff girls for guys to drool over if they wish and you have buff guys for the girls to drool over.
Objectifying men and women isnt bad, its NORMAL when it comes to sexually attractive peeps of the opposite gender, and certainly not something to feel guilty about.
Having both be objectified does not solve which problem? Im guessing you mean the wider context of gender relations and equality in which case no it definitly wont solve it, but its a step in the right direction in my personal experience .

As for your last comment, funny thing is despite my stance, id likely be the person most unfazed by a pretty booth girl, precisely for the reason that sexuality isnt that big of a deal to me, and this relates to my aforementioned life experience that is clearly very different to you xD
Basically tldr is my dad was a player and was surrounded by sexy women since i was born+lived an extensive period in france where open and free sexuality was the norm and led to very relaxed relations between the 2 genders and also way more openess and honesty. Will spare you the raunchier anecdotes but suffice to say, in france its common to have billboards showing the naked form of BOTH genders, litterally have an attractive ass as advert for a pharmacy product.
In plain street, with all the kids, i might add. And because its so routine and normal, it barely raises a reaction. Adding to this that most of my friends were female and some became models (one even had stints at gaming expo), hope you can start to see how ive come to my views without going "loool you just wanna see boobs", because frankly, ive seen enough boobs that i can control myself better then most ;)
Open and free sexuality does promote equality, much more then equally enforced puritanism, and furthermore thats just plain unhealthy and rather lame tbh.

With regards to booth babes vs cosplayers the obvious difference is one is doing it because they enjoy it and the other is doing it because they're getting paid. Really rather obvious difference.

I don't have anything against modelling or revealing clothes but it really has nothing to do with video gaming. It's purely pandering to the disgusting stereotype that games are for boys and those that play them are horny anti-social shut-ins and it is bound to push women away. If it's relevant then they can obviously have cosplayers in sexy outfits where appropriate but as I understand it they just had a bunch of girls in hot pants with logos on. The former at least makes sense, the other is just pervy and weird. It's a business event ultimately and it would be incredibly inappropriate.

So yeah, thumbs up to Eurogamer from me.

edit: and for the record, a woman who is genuinely interested about these things I like and intelligent is far more attractive to me than somebody who is capable of doing more sit-ups.

Andy Chalk:
Is the woman in the photo above a booth babe or a cosplayer? And if you can't tell, then how do we determine where to draw the line - and why?

Cosplayers are people who've worked hard on a costume because they love the medium, booth babes are hired by agencies. Pretty obvious, that's where you draw the line. It's not like people are going to start hiring covert booth babes to pretend to be cosplayers, is it? (If they do... well, they should probably be allowed to, because that'd just be mad. And I respect that.)

I don't care about them banning the booth babes. I just want to know where those QR codes linked to.

If I'm at a game expo looking for info about games, I want to see and talk to actual developers about what they're working on. Not PR representatives, but least of all not booth babes. And I certainly wouldn't want to be representing a game studio as a female developer where booth babes have been hired, that would be really awkward for me. I would definitely feel more welcome as a developer and as a gamer without them, as the message they send isn't really one of inclusion.

Finally, hopefully other game expos will follow suit.
I've never seen a "booth babe" at any of the retail expo's I've been to.

AngloDoom:

NightowlM:
[Shnippy, das kleine Krokodil]

You mean a petition to justify keeping booth babes while pretending to care about equality by throwing some half-naked guys in the mix. Newsflash: objectifying men and women is bad. Having both be equally objectified does not solve the problem. But I'm guessing that the only reason any one would petition for this sort of thing is because they don't want the booth babes to go and need to half-assedly justify their position.

Woah, generalise much?

[unimportant bit]I personally don't see the big appeal in booth-babes, if I want to look at a female form for sexual arousal then I'll just go full-on and look at pornography: the same reason I don't understand strip clubs. Why pepper sexuality throughout your day and just suffered a prolonged blueballing experience?[/unimportant bit]

What's wrong with objectifying people if they have no problem being objectified? When I couldn't see my girlfriend at the time for a couple of months and she asked me to go on Skype and get naked for her, I imagine she wasn't looking at my beaming personality. She was objectifying me and I certainly enjoyed the attention. Similarly, when people get naked or semi-naked so a group of people can look at them then they are either enjoying the attention or don't mind the attention due to some other reward at the end of it all. What's so wrong with that?

I don't see what's wrong with objectifying people who want to objectified - you can't possibly argue that the gaming community is full of people so impressionable that seeing any woman dress up for the male gaze means that they're going to assume that all women serve no other purpose than this?

Sure, sex shouldn't be used to sell unrelated products - but it will be anyway because it works. We're never going to get rid of objectifying attractive individuals without pushing ourselves back through another sexually repressed Victorian Age and I certainly would rather be happy and comfortable in my sexuality rather than have to feel guilty because I occasionally see a woman for something other than their personality.

I don't think you really know what the concept of objectification is about. It's not the same as being physically and sexually attracted to someone. It also doesn't mean that viewing someone at any given moment in a sexualized way because of their physical attributes is objectionable. In your example, you know that your girlfriend is more than just her physical appearance. So the girlfriend example really means little. Here's a link:
https://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/faq-what-is-sexual-objectification/

You're assuming too much when you talk about people who want to be objectified. Sure, some people may like being the center of attention and some may even derive sexual pleasure from it, but to assume that everyone who voluntarily puts themselves in a position that is objectified also wishes to be objectified is too presumptive. And it's also presumptive to think that gamers have reached a point where everyone sees booth babes as complex individuals and not just a pair of tits to be oggled. And if people over time only see hyper-sexualized images of women without seeing much in the way of complexity in them, then they are more likely to generalize that a great deal.

And using the excuse that "things are like this now and will always be this way so just get used to it" is really lame. People working in advertizing think that sex sells, but that doesn't mean that people can't change that. And no one is advocating going back through another victorian age. That's just a common excuse to not do anything about sexual objectification. Someone has trouble with the way women or men are sexualized, then someone complains that those who are concerned are repressed puritans and that they want to turn back time. It's a bullshit tactic.

And again, sexual objectification is not the same as "occasionally see[ing] a woman for something other than their personality."

Andy Chalk:

NameIsRobertPaulson:
That's a load, Andy, and you know it. One group is there because they want to show off their costumes, and the work that went into them, and their dedication to their favorite franchises. One group is there because some marketing genius realized that sex sells. Entirely different.

But you're not answering the question. Is it okay for her to attend as an independent cosplayer with the intent of promoting and advancing her own career and business?

So many of you guys want to paint this as a simple, black-and-white issue, and yet what you're really trying to do is set the terms under which people can and cannot flash cleavage at game shows. How do you argue that that's not a completely arbitrary distinction?

There's an easy way to answer this Andy. Imagine you're at an Expo with your wife, girlfriend or significant other.

Now, imagine you see a girl dressed in a Stormtrooper outfit walking the other way. It's one of those really skimpy female Stormtrooper outfits, that shows off all the curves. You know that there aren't any Star Wars games being shown, so you must assume that this girl has chose to wear the Stormtrooper suit out of her own nerdy volition. And while it may be a little awkward if your wife/gf/other catches you ogling, you can accept that in a free arena, people will dress how they want, without any expectation placed upon them.

Now, imagine you are at an Expo where you see a booth stationed by women in their underwear. You are also at this expo with the wife/gf/other. Instead of seeing someone choosing to dress how they want, you're seeing a bunch of women being paid to dress that way. And ignoring all the economics issues, think about the way this is ethically different to the previous examples. The first Expo allowed people to dress how they want, and in doing so fostered an environment of acceptance and equality. This second expo is different. Publishers are catering to the lowest denominator by paying women to sell their products on the shallowest level possible, and by giving them a room to do this, the expo is actively endorsing them in doing so.

Which do you think your wife/gf/other would enjoy more? The first expo, where booth babes are banned but people are allowed to dress according to their own tastes? Or the second one, where the expo itself endorses an environment of female objectification and teenage adolescent fantasy?

A cosplayer chooses. A booth babe obeys.

That's the fundamental difference.

NightowlM:

I don't think you really know what the concept of objectification is about. It's not the same as being physically and sexually attracted to someone. It also doesn't mean that viewing someone at any given moment in a sexualized way because of their physical attributes is objectionable. In your example, you know that your girlfriend is more than just her physical appearance. So the girlfriend example really means little. Here's a link:
https://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/faq-what-is-sexual-objectification/

I was actually discussing the way my girlfriend was objectifying me, but hey easy mistake. Either way, my girlfriend at the time also used to watch pornography and would view the men and women in that purely as sexual objects. When she looked at me on Skype it was in substitution of pornography and it had nothing to no with me as a person: she would quite happily have done the same to images of a stranger. It wasn't really about me as a person, it was about the fact that she viewed parts of me attractive and wanted to see them. I understand you are arguing that she viewed me more as more than a penis on legs, I simply do not believe any well-adjusted human being looks at a person doing something sexy and stops seeing them as a person. Sure, they're not considering their personality at the time, but that doesn't mean they don't know it exists.

You're assuming too much when you talk about people who want to be objectified. Sure, some people may like being the center of attention and some may even derive sexual pleasure from it, but to assume that everyone who voluntarily puts themselves in a position that is objectified also wishes to be objectified is too presumptive.

Is it? I mean, in the examples we are looking at, I doubt 'booth babes' think their job is to be anything other than to be objectified and, as reasonable adults, they are quite happy to do that. Whether it is for the reward at the end (money/modelling portfolio work) or simply to enjoy being looked at and desire is irrelevant: they are making the decision for themselves as reasonable adults.

And it's also presumptive to think that gamers have reached a point where everyone sees booth babes as complex individuals and not just a pair of tits to be oggled. And if people over time only see hyper-sexualized images of women without seeing much in the way of complexity in them, then they are more likely to generalize that a great deal.

While I agree with the latter of this statement, I disagree with the former. The fact that there is so much pornography on the internet does not stop people from having sisters, mothers, or female friends. You seem to believe that more 'gamers' see 'booth babes' as inhuman creatures fit only for oggling, and I simply do not buy that. Everyone always talks about the "unwashed masses" who think this that and the other, but no-one is willing to admit that they are that person. Who do you know who literally thinks that sexy women are not human?

And using the excuse that "things are like this now and will always be this way so just get used to it" is really lame.

Agreed, I just don't think it has to change in the way you suggest. Sexual objectification will always be fun for people who want to be objectified. When people have complimented me on my appearance without ever knowing me I get a real joy out of that. If I dress up in a way that makes people look at me, I won't complain when the people who look at me only see me as what I'm wearing. The only way we can stop considering people sexy before we know them is to pretend we don't have sexual feelings, which leads to a whole new hell of disasters. If men were equally sexualised and itemised in the media and in general then there is little to worry about.

People working in advertizing think that sex sells, but that doesn't mean that people can't change that. And no one is advocating going back through another victorian age. That's just a common excuse to not do anything about sexual objectification. Someone has trouble with the way women or men are sexualized, then someone complains that those who are concerned are repressed puritans and that they want to turn back time. It's a bullshit tactic.

Why is it so bad to view someone as a sexual object when you have no intention of getting to know them, then? Do you really believe that a significant amount of Western society will stop thinking of women as human beings with feelings just because they don't consider all women's feelings equally?

And again, sexual objectification is not the same as "occasionally see[ing] a woman for something other than their personality."

I personally don't see what's wrong with seeing someone for their physical attributes. If I see a woman walking about in revealing clothing why am I obliged to consider her personality before I feel a degree of sexual attraction to her? Everyone objectifies all the time. Your description of objectification is "viewing of people solely as de-personalised objects of desire instead of as individuals with complex personalities and desires/plans of their own". Do you honestly see someone with an attractive face and think "Boy, I bet she has some wonderful aspirations in her life"? No, I imagine you go "she has a pretty face."

I still don't see what's wrong with that, but I admit I just might not understand the concept itself. Please bear with me if I seem to be slow picking up this definition.

Also, we're totally on different pages with our views of 'gamers' in general. I simply do not believe that the majority of gamers are that simple. Call me an optimist, but I just don't.

I saw the ones with QR codes on there rears, they were dressed as russians with short shorts and a short top on...i didn't get it and they certainly weren't as revealing as another girl I saw as cosplaying Juliet, then again i didn't see anything wrong other than the QR code..my friend said it was pervy. Didn't notice other booth babes, just people in game or company tshirts

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

Which do you think your wife/gf/other would enjoy more? The first expo, where booth babes are banned but people are allowed to dress according to their own tastes? Or the second one, where the expo itself endorses an environment of female objectification and teenage adolescent fantasy?

A cosplayer chooses. A booth babe obeys.

That's the fundamental difference.

Hehe, very well put.

The thing that really irritates me about booth babes is their lack of sincerity.
They are actively trying to manipulate you and I hate it when people do that.
I'd rather talk to a reeking, raving mad homeless man wielding a broken bottle than talk to a cynical trickster woman trying to flirt her way to my wallet.

The Crotch:

Andy Chalk:
What about a woman like this, who cosplays as part of her career? Is it okay to let her in? What if Square Enix is footing her expenses?

Okay, now this is more difficult, albeit mainly because I really don't know what that woman's deal is. Is she getting paid by companies to bring attention to their product with her body?

Then yeah, sure, that's a booth babe.

She does that, and she cosplays. Sometimes simultaneously, sometimes not. Weirdly enough, for someone who is often a booth babe she actually has a fanbase.

She's also one of the "Soda Pop Girls" who are basically booth babes for Soda Pop Miniatures, the people who made that card game that pissed off a bunch of feminist blogs who protested until Kickstarter shut their KS project down despite it not violating any KS requirements. A mini of her was one of the pledge bonuses, and she's also purportedly the model for one of that game's characters (along with several other characters being based on other Soda Pop Girls -- the link above has their card beside their photo for some of their profiles).

Tisiphone1:
PAX has long had a policy against booth babes and its show floor is better for it. Glad to see other shows finally getting on board.

PAX's policy is kind of a funny one. It certainly limits the most egrecious booth babes, but it doesn't do enough to avoid pissing off the same people who tend to get really pissy about booth babes. Notably, someone who is in cosplay as a character from the game being pushed and who actually, you know, knows something about the product is generally OK to them, for example the woman dressed as the protagonist from Lollipop Chainsaw at their demo bus at PAX East 2012 (though they will sometimes ask to have the costume toned down if it goes too far). So was she a booth babe or a company rep in cosplay? Where exactly is the line between sexually attractive company rep (or developer for some of the indie teams) and booth babe who's been briefed on what she's selling?

Rahuzero:

Tenmar:
So, let's get this straight.

We will not allow men and women who aspire in their career to be models and building their portfolio and help earn a living and develop a career. Also, apparently due to how risky these models dress and given the demographic we must have it remain child friendly because someone must think of the children.

Yep it's official, the video game industry now has a religious right enforcing their morality.

That's the thing. We are not children. We don't need booth babes. I am glad they are banned.

I'm with this one^

This has nothing to do with "booth babes are bad because sexy outfits are bad for children" This has to do with the fact that having women dress up in revealing outfits to grab attention is a pretty cheap trick. Yes sex sells, but this expo wants people talking with developers, artists, press, etc based on actual merit of being interesting, engaging, and knowledgeable. Having scantily clad girls at a booth shouldn't be require to get attention.

Also, cosplayers aren't paid by the company that made that character. XP

So has the fact that booth babes are essentially glamour models doing their job been brought up at all? This just reeks of "we don't take kindly to your kind 'round here" to me.

Andy Chalk:
Is this really an issue? Because I have to say I find it a little odd that while the Eurogamer Expo makes such a big show of banning booth babes from its floor, it has no problem with scantily-clad "cosplayers," or posting pictures of them on its Facebook page.

Do I need to point out the absurdity of comparing booth babes to cosplayers on the sole comparison that they're scantily-clad? Have you even been to a gaming expo and how degrading it is to know the very existence and reason of booth babes, Chalk? Are you really saying it's all right for an issue in the industry that has been legitimately scrutinized by the media, just because you have cosplayers who devote their time towards their love for video game characters?

Tenmar:
So, let's get this straight.

We will not allow men and women who aspire in their career to be models and building their portfolio and help earn a living and develop a career. Also, apparently due to how risky these models dress and given the demographic we must have it remain child friendly because someone must think of the children.

Yep it's official, the video game industry now has a religious right enforcing their morality.

People always blame the "Religious right" but there are plenty of Atheists, Feminist (ones who do not care about religion), and many others; who view the violence and sexualization, together in one event to be a horrendous offense too humanity.

I personally think many other events (like major gun show and car shows) would do well to desexualize their events, so that women and men who are not that comfortable with this objectification of other humans.

Devoneaux:
Depends. Is she there because she is legitimately interested in the medium and wants to see what's up with her favorite dev teams? Or is her only reason for showing up just so she can exploit the crowd and try to make a name for herself?

To be quite frank Andy, you're making this more complicated than it needs to be, not the other way around. Booth Babes have no place at a Game Convention any more than they do at your local Fries Electronics (Because really, how else do you market the latest and greatest monitor than by having scantly dressed women dancing around it?)Also, a simple dress code -really- wouldn't be asking too much.

So you want to base what these women are allowed to do entirely upon their motivations for doing it? That's quite a position to argue from, and again, entirely arbitrary.

Dress codes are fine, as long as they're universal. No booth babes, no cosplayers. I have no problem with that. I have a problem with an artificial distinction being made to mollify people who get nervous around pretty girls.

DVS BSTrD:
Cosplayers always slip through the cracks.
And what gorgeous cracks they are! :P

Why thank you my good man.
Because I'm sure that male cosplayers are being acknowledged, and we aren't all just thinking a cosplayer is a sexy girl who dresses up. That is not the general impression this thread has given me.

Frankster:

scw55:
snip

SNIP

NightowlM:
snip

snip

The thing is. Cosplayers are doing a hobby.
Boothbabes are selling.

Cosplayers are enjoying dressingup.
Boothbabes are selling products through sex.

I hate these types of discussions.

Grenge Di Origin:
Do I need to point out the absurdity of comparing booth babes to cosplayers on the sole comparison that they're scantily-clad? Have you even been to a gaming expo and how degrading it is to know the very existence and reason of booth babes, Chalk? Are you really saying it's all right for an issue in the industry that has been legitimately scrutinized by the media, just because you have cosplayers who devote their time towards their love for video game characters?

I'm saying it's massively hypocritical to ban one type of scantily-clad female but not another, based solely on their motivations for being at the show.

Just as a side note, you know what show hasn't banned booth babes? The Detroit Auto Show. Running since 1907.

http://www.businessinsider.com/booth-babes-detroit-2012-1?op=1

Maybe it's not the presence of booth babes that demonstrates the immaturity of our industry, but our anguished hand-wringing over it.

scw55:

Frankster:

scw55:
snip

SNIP

NightowlM:
snip

snip

The thing is. Cosplayers are doing a hobby.
Boothbabes are selling.

Cosplayers are enjoying dressingup.
Boothbabes are selling products through sex.

I hate these types of discussions.

Cosplayers are doing a hobby.
Boothbabes are doing their job.

Cosplayers are enjoying dressing up.
Boothbabes are doing their job.

Yeah...not too fond of them myself. And yet I always get involved...:/

scw55:

Frankster:

scw55:
snip

SNIP

NightowlM:
snip

snip

The thing is. Cosplayers are doing a hobby.
Boothbabes are selling.

Cosplayers are enjoying dressingup.
Boothbabes are selling products through sex.

I hate these types of discussions.

Boothbabes can also enjoy dressing up (am thinking of 1 of my model friends in particular here) and i know for a fact that some cosplayers do see their costumes as a way of popularizing the game or media they are basing their costume on. Modelling is also a hobby to an extent and the models i know went into that career line precisely because it made a career out of their hobbies, much like someone into games might pursue a job in the gaming industry.
In this very thread its been pointed out there are a few cosplayers who blur the line between doing what they do for hobby and when they just do what they do for profit (the whole sodagirls example), so yeh its not as nearly as clear cut as you want it to be.

I loathe these kind of discussions too since i know you have no interest in anything i say beyond trying to "prove me wrong" and so what could be a good, honest discussion on the topic is doomed from the start.

Frankster:

Boothbabes can also enjoy dressing up (am thinking of 1 of my model friends in particular here) and i know for a fact that some cosplayers do see their costumes as a way of popularizing the game or media they are basing their costume on.
In this very thread its been pointed out there are a few cosplayers who blur the line between doing what they do for hobby and when they just do what they do for profit (the whole sodagirls example), so yeh its not as nearly as clear cut as you want it to be.

I loathe these kind of discussions too since i know you have no interest in anything i say beyond trying to "prove me wrong" and so what could be a good, honest discussion on the topic is doomed from the start.

I dislike people in general who dress revealingly for the purpose of attention; booth babes/cosplayers/'everyday' wear/club 'wear'. But that's being biggot apparently so I don't go around preaching that.

It's just exploiting people who get turned on by women parts to sell items in a none-adult area is evil and patronising. If I'm in a 'all audience' area, I don't want to see things to stir my trouser snake.

I think, the line is. Cosplay is 'art' and boothbabes are 'marketing'. The art tag has been used before to excuse for titties to appear on artworks.

Why am I still contributing to this quagmire?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 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