Rhetorical question: How long does it take you to notice the controller in the above picture? Certainly, it's no secret that it should take longer to notice the 360 peripheral than it does the model's bare skin, seductive pose, and phallic sword. (This isn't just because the controller is in the bottom right of the frame, either.)
Sex sells. Always has, always will. It sells movies, guns, automobiles, appliances, dish soap, and even children's music. It seemingly dominates every marketable impulse an advertiser can dream up.
Arguments will forever arise over whether the use of sex--in particular, women as sexual objects--to sell products is an unavoidable byproduct of our culture or if it possesses any redeeming quality. Some have argued that women are well enough off being objectified because it is exactly what they want... some are empowered through a blatant display of their sexuality, and in the case of the above, one that purports to put the "power" (penis-like as it may be) squarely in their hands.
There may be a sliver of truth underlying this theory: I'm sure many models enjoy their work, think nothing of the objectification in which they engage, and in this case may even get a personal thrill out of becoming part of male nerd culture--the classic "boys club." On the surface, it may not seem like this is hurting anyone.
I and many others would argue that this supposition--that being relegated to the level of masturbatory fantasy and play toy signifies a substantial amount of self-expression and empowerment for anyone, man or woman--is the sort of backwards thinking that has perpetuated sexism and misogyny well into the modern era. We can explain away any behavior or attitude, I suppose, if we pretend that the victim is also the victor.
Feel free to come down on either side. I'm not a prude; I'm all for personal freedom and if you want to objectify within your legal limits, feel free. If you're a beautiful young model and dream of getting invited to a post-E3 party, by all means, become a booth babe. Don't let my finger-waving get in your way.
On second thought, maybe it should....
It's arguable that the recent debacle involving EA's "misinterpreted" contest to molest its Comic Con booth babes represents the culmination of years of sexist attitudes built up within the game industry. Again, I'm well aware that many industries have used sex to sell products during public exhibitions for decades and have never come close to explicitly requesting that consumers molest their spokeswomen.
But these other industries do not push the concepts of "interactivity," product-sampling, and "getting lost in the fantasy" as much as gaming. Even if the spectator in question were a woman, and even if the model were a man, the point stands: By its very nature, the game industry carries the burden of insinuating that consumers are not simply spectators or passers-by, but players in the spectacle of the expo--active participants complicit in what can be considered the degradation of other human beings.
Sure, the ESA tried to ban E3 booth babes back in 2006 (albeit with little explanation as to why it was choosing to do so), and the decision was reversed this year due in large part to popular demand. The reversal was met with a great deal of fanfare, legitimizing E3's re-embrace of the public. No one is arguing that this sort of sexual promotion isn't the right thing to do from a business perspective.
But when all is said and done, we must ask, Do our principles outweigh our products? Does it make good ethical sense to be at least a little prudish (or prudent) in the way we choose to represent ourselves, to share our industry and culture with the rest of the world, even if it makes little business sense?
I believe that the outcry against the EA promotion, predictable as it was, represents a positive sign that many people are choosing to draw a line in the sand when it comes to putting products above people. I don't expect another ban on booth babes any time soon, but it's rather refreshing to see the average gamer caught up in the sex-sells debate. In that sense, the promotion and subsequent reaction were perhaps the best possible things to happen to the world of video game exhibitions: timely indicators that at least some of us have outgrown the boys club.
In any case, I'd rather have the discussion that accompanies controversy than no discussion at all. This is why I have come to accept the existence of G4TV and the Spike Video Game Awards: For all the moronic stereotypes and half-truths they propagate, they have also become the catalyst for some kind of critical response, however minor or marginalized. Gaming is not solely the province of pubescent males eager to touch "real boobies," and while its marketers may seem intent on reaching that particular audience, the more folks out there attesting otherwise, the better.
I'm quite proud to say that whoever came up with the "Sin to Win" contest severely underestimated the gaming community. Who knows when I'll get to say that again?
I've always questioned the idea of "sex sells" for a couple of reasons. Anything will sell if you put enough time and promotion behind it. The hideous Transformers franchise would've sold big even without Meghan Fox--you cant escape the ad blitz.
Apple, for instance, as relied on wit and simplicity to move Macs.
Sex, I think, will only sell to hornballs. And would they even remember the product after being blinded by T and A?
Posted by: Jeffrey L. Wilson | 08/01/2009 at 04:14 PM