Speaking of objectification, I'm afraid the problem lies in the female POV. As a man who's watched a lot of shoujo and josei content, I can confirm that, depending on the case, content aimed at women can objectify male characters just as much as content aimed at men can objectify female characters. We simply often don't notice this due to our gendered lenses. Just take the male love interest from some cult drama aimed at women and try gender-swapping the characters. What do you think the chances are that you'll end up with an absurdly idealized woman who's perfectly comfortable for the protagonist, and you won't like it? This happens a lot in shoujo anime and manga actually (even good gender-neutral works can offer you absurdly perfect bishonens), but unlike waifu in male manga and anime, no one complains about it.RobertBobert:
I fail to see how this has anything to do with character agency, and therefore objectification? Idealization sure, yes, that's symmetrical, we agree on that. But a character doesn't need to be idealized to be objectified, even, they only need to lack agency. A character can be presented as ugly and still be objectified. Fat female characters often get objectified in order to be made fun of. (Not that I'm saying fat characters are inherently ugly, but mainstream media is sadly saying that.)
Can you give an example of a male love interest in a shoujo drama whose actions do not influence the plot?
Romance is actually not the genre where you should be looking for objectification. Romance as a genre kind of by definition pits the protagonist against the love interest (technically the antagonist). They have opposing goals and ideas, and the plot is them each taking their own actions in opposition to each other, eventually overcoming their differences to end up together. It's quite hard to make a romance where either the main protagonist or main antagonist has no influence on the plot, because then what's left of the plot? Where's the conflict to overcome?
One thing you could do would be to introduce a villain putting external pressure on the couple, so that you have the main protagonist fighting an external battle (to fight disapproving parents or save the world or whatever) and then give the protagonist a love interest who is arm-candy or a damsel (damsels are usually female but they can be male, the point is that they are an object to be saved), who makes no decisions regarding the main conflict. But at that point it has kind of left the romance genre and only includes an element of romance within a main narrative about fighting for personal acceptance or something.
Another thing you could do is to have a character put up token resistance, or to reveal that they've actually been manipulated this whole time and none of their actions ever actually mattered. Look at the 'groundhog day' movie. It went to great metaphysical lengths to make sure none of the love interest's actions or opinions would ever stick, and the guy would eventually 'get' her if he just put in the correct combination of actions. She's like a static puzzle to unlock.
as well as social norms. For example, you can easily subtly depict a beautiful female body in a sexy, aesthetically pleasing way, while emphasizing male sexuality, including male genitalia, would immediately make the moment too vulgar.
Exactly, it's social norms that cause the difference. That's sexism at work. That's exactly the point.
There's also this thing where straight men get (homophobically) uncomfortable with any media that sexualizes male bodies, because they feel that it's gay for them to see it at all. Straight women don't get homophobically uncomfortable with media that sexualizes female bodies (they only get feministically uncomfortable), because they just assume 'this content is not intended for me', while straight men do expect that things are adapted for male interests specifically, because you know, they usually are. You see McDonalds ads featuring sexualized women in the mainstream, but never featuring sexualized men.
But you're right that purity culture also plays a role in the way that male love interests don't get sexualized nearly as overtly.
Idk if that second post was directed at me or at someone else. It doesn't seem to relate to anything I said.
BL was written by straight women
Mostly untrue. Afab queerness just gets erased a lot, for complex societal reasons.
In a male-centric world, where male content is often perceived as the default, GL is expected to be much more accepted, even by women, than BL. The most obvious sign of this is the more lenient censorship for lesbian characters and subplots in mainstream media than for gay male ones.
Truth. But lesbians have historically been relegated to being a subplot, tucked into the mainstream but always on the sidelines, not deemed to be important enough to be the main plot. The recent GL wave is not like that. Gay men have historically tended to be main plot material. Too taboo to be mainstream, but within their niche they got the entire spotlight. Straight men aren't as homophobically uncomfortable with watching lesbian content as they are with content about gay men, so lesbians get a small spot in the mainstream, just still mostly catered to turning straight men on rather than to actually telling lesbian stories in their own right.
Also your BL/yaoi etymology is way off. Not that it matters. Funnily enough, 'yaoi' has never been as popular a term in Japan as it was in the west, while the term 'BL' did originate in Japan and is still fairly common there (though obviously it has now expanded way beyond Japan). This is because a word in a foreign language is more obfuscated and therefore a better euphemism. It's ultimately purity culture.
You yourself insist that social differences between men and women are a social construct
I think you're confusing me with someone else.
You are confusing objectification with the protagonist's POV.
When feminists say 'objectification' they mean that a character lacks agency. Given that this is the third time I'm saying this and you're still arguing semantics and idealization, I give up on communicating this point now.
even many yaoi authors acknowledged that the genre was written by women for women and shouldn't be looked for as a true representation of Japanese gay men.
Truth, written mostly by women for women, a lot of whom were queer.
Again, everything is relative, and things always have many nuances. Especially in culture. So try to explore the diversity of things, rather than reducing them to labels or generalizations. You value diversity, right?
I do, which is why I use words like 'tend to', 'often' and 'one of the reasons for', to indicate that none of it is universal, and there are always more factors to be discovered.
You seem to be getting pretty agitated, and I'm not feeling like matching that. So I wish you a great rest of your weekend, and a good time watching dramas. Goodbye now.
Also, please refrain from breaking up my posts into separate quotes. It's very casuistic, forces me to write many different responses instead of one, and is simply problematic.
No. It's decades-old forum and pre-forum etiquette for indicating what part of a post someone is responding to more directly. It's very useful in helping both those involved and those just reading follow the conversation.
Your lack of quotes means everyone except you has to work out what you're talking about. It's not always clear. Are you here for a conversation or to lecture?
You can create an aesthetically pleasing cleavage, but you can't aesthetically suggest a character's large penis.
No. There's a LOT of cultural baggage going on in that false assertion.
everything is relative, and things always have many nuances. Especially in culture
See above =D
Elisheva:
No. It's decades-old forum and pre-forum etiquette for indicating what part of a post someone is responding to more directly. It's very useful in helping both those involved and those just reading follow the conversation.
Your lack of quotes means everyone except you has to work out what you're talking about. It's not always clear. Are you here for a conversation or to lecture?
No. There's a LOT of cultural baggage going on in that false assertion.
See above =D
I've been using forums since the late 2000s, and I've only seen this in the last 5-10 years. It's pure casuistry, breaking your thesis into many smaller points and forcing you to write a bunch of disparate responses instead of one coherent one.
It's not my problem that you write huge walls of text that can't be quoted.
"No, you're wrong!" and "see the previous answer" are not answers, they are sophistry. However, as I see, you are not going to add anything new to the dialogue in advance and will simply act as a bodyguard for the previous commentator, so I will end this in advance and simply ignore you, sorry. Don't expect respect if you don't intend to respect your interlocutor in the first place.
I've been using forums since the late 2000s, and I've only seen this in the last 5-10 years. It's pure casuistry, breaking your thesis into many smaller points and forcing you to write a bunch of disparate responses instead of one coherent one.
Shrugs. I was using it 25 years ago. But no matter =D
It's not forcing YOU to do anything. You are free to reply in whatever manner you want. So read the reply to you as a whole, where that's appropriate, and respond in one piece. Highlight quoting is a very effective way of communicating what is specifically being responded to. It's wonderfully helpful for most of us, which is why it's so commonly used. If it's not for you, just ignore it. You are free to do that.
It's not my problem that you write huge walls of text that can't be quoted.
The obvious "Quote at the bottom quotes an entire post. The devs built in limits on what can be quoted that way.
Highlight the bit you want to quote. A "Quote should appear just above it. That will cite just a part. It's how the rest of us have done it with yours. That the devs built in this feature very specifically indicates the appropriateness of its use, as does the frequency with which the rest of us are using it. Not just in this thread but across the forums.
Now that you know how to do it, you can go back and show me which wall of text of mine you're referring to =D
"No, you're wrong!" and "see the previous answer" are not answers, they are sophistry.
My use of "no" was to indicate disagreement. You got it wrong. I went on to explain why. Your assertions of sophistry are the sophistry here =D
"See above =D" was using your own words, those in the quote, as part of my argument. You argue for cultural conditioning when it suits you but failed to see it in the part which I pulled out to disagree with.
However, as I see, you are not going to add anything new to the dialogue in advance and will simply act as a bodyguard for the previous commentator, so I will end this in advance and simply ignore you, sorry. Don't expect respect if you don't intend to respect your interlocutor in the first place.
No. You got me wrong again. (Statement of fact, not sophistry.) I addressed two things in your post which Ryn hadn't but jumped out at me, especially the one which you repeated. Really does look like you don't understand the purpose of highlight quoting, or why the rest of us aren't inclined to accede to your formatting demands.
(Please note: It was a conscious choice to begin outside of what Ryn focused on rather than jump in on those points. I haven't participated in this thread for a wee while so this was getting back into it and beginning to find my place in the current conversation. I'm happy to talk in-depth and substantially.)
Who said I expect respect? I'm a woman on the internet, I know how it works. But where have I disrespected you? Are you upset because I am in a good mood today and smiling a lot? Because I'd rather be friendly and happy, today especially, than stern and grumpy? Is that what you require as a sign of respect?
Ok then, to be perfectly frank, serious and unsmiling - you come across like you're expecting deference and that you see anything else as a lack of respect for you.
And continuing to be frank, serious and unsmiling, I don't see you giving much, if any, respect for others in this thread.
If you are genuinely here for conversation, and not to lecture us (per my earlier, genuine question to you), then communicating respect rather than demanding the rest of us do things as you wish, will help greatly. But if you are here solely to lecture, just say that too.
I hope your day is good =D
Ryn:
I'm done talking to you but I will still help you with tech. In order to quote a small part of a giant post, you use your mouse to select/highlight a sentence in someone's post, and then a button pops up that says 'quote'. Click it. Tadaa.
I generally avoid arguing with walls of text, as they require excessive attention and analysis. Such comments usually consist of a large number of disparate theses, and you either end up in a casuistic dispute, or you begin to misunderstand each other and ultimately end up in conflict, because it is very difficult to maintain such a reasonable communication for a long time.
styx971:
i'm mainly in Ryn's camp on this one . while bl can certainly have aspects of objectification in them more often than not the point of them isn't cause the guys look good so much as the story interactions and expressions that are the pull imo. thats not to say that some more smutty yaoi doesn't exist strictly more the goods , but even then its usually got some form of emotional pull, hence the difference between the mentioned man vs female gaze. i have alot of thoughts in my head about the topic but theres alot of back and forth i just read n frankly its all a bit jumbled ,....
which is why its right that elisheva pointed out the usefulness of having segments be quoted cause frankly it is just easier to reply sensibly on a topic instead of ppl assuming your following a specific segment when a person may not be .... but its ~5:30am and i'm not in the right headspace for a more eloquent reply i merely wanted to toss in my 2cents after reading all this
This would work if female objectification didn't also extend to pleasurable situations and the like, but it doesn't. As I said above. The feminist interpretation of the word "objectification" is too broad and allows for the argument to be adjusted depending on the situation, which truly turns this argument into a situational overreach. Men are also interested in a wide variety of shared experiences just like women, and to claim that men are only interested in sexual attractiveness in women would be downright sexist and gender stereotyping.
But otherwise, as I said before, you simply don't consider that the female gaze and the male gaze operate on a basic level according to similar laws; it's just that our POV obscures this, creating the illusion that fetishization only exists in media for the opposite sex. Because as a woman, you're better able to notice the unrealistic nature of female representation, and as a man, I'm better able to notice the unrealistic nature of male representation. It's true that female gaze is less directly erotic due to gender-based social norms, but women aren't asexual, and eroticism still exists, just on a more subtle level than in male gaze. That's all.
Men are also interested in a wide variety of shared experiences just like women, and to claim that men are only interested in sexual attractiveness in women would be downright sexist and gender stereotyping.
your totally right in this point , its just that the sad fact is generally speaking things how most things tend to portray men which is to say in a sorta toxic masculinity type of way . my own fiancestruggles with this in a way , topic post aside hes the type of guy who is a bit of a 'softy' who enjoys emotional aspects of things and will often get emotional watching stuff,.. sadly that makes him hyperaware of his surroundings like he has to hide it (he doesn't!) cause ppl might laugh at him , ... admittedly i do laugh but mainly cause i think its cute (which probably doesn't help) , but its a fact that he gets a bit of a bad wrap with some ppl we know cause its like i'm the 1 wearing the pants not him ,.. its a ridiculous statement in general but its just an example of the compounding issue of how society looks at things...
It's true that female gaze is less directly erotic due to gender-based social norms, but women aren't asexual, and eroticism still exists, just on a more subtle level than in male gaze.
i think thats the issue tho ,.. its not that your wrong in this statement your not , but the female gaze being more subtle is exactly the point in the difference between the two. tho idk if subtle is exactly the right way to describe things either? ,...
... i mean personally i'm ok with either version myself. i enjoy porn , preferably gay since i'm not attracted to females tho hetero is Fine , but i equally and most often prefer more soft core or erotica than porn because of how things are portrayed i guess? ... all of them are forms of eroticism but male gaze stuff tends to be more explicit and visual , vs female is more implied or if explict tends to have more emotionally expressive glances between characters or more detailed euphemisms for actions. i won't say men can't write a good romance novel or anything cause that would be absurd , but there is a reason i think why there are more female writers for romance novels than men and thats ignoring BL as a genre and just broadly speaking its not that they can't write a good story so much as they tend to lack in alot of the details women tend to look for cause generally speaking we process things differently. often it'll just be more tell than show and details are missing i guess i'd say .... its hard to discribe exactly what i'm trying to say , its a bit after 7am and i'm ready for dinner and bed ( night creature that i am)
