Street Fighter V Costume Deemed Unfit for TV, ESPN Tells Evo Finalist to Change It

"What do you make of all this? Put some pants on in the comments section below."

it's stupid, it's a video game character that's all but the way people react you would think it was the end of the world

This was also airing on Disney XD, but the look on Kazunoko face when the EVO staffer went on to talk to him after the first match was priceless! Now I understand.
Btw how can I incorporate images in my replies?

"the broadcaster regularly airs beach volleyball matches, so it's no stranger to showing some skin"

I get the point, but you have to look deeper than that, because it isn't really the same. Athletes dress to play their sport as best they can, not because they want to be sex symbols. The character in the game is dressed to be sexual, not because it makes her fight better. I see this as ESPN's way of trying to shy away from the over-sexualization of women, something video games really struggle with. So no, it isn't really the same.

They're the ones broadcasting so it's their rules. There would be reason behind it but they don't have to explain themselves to everyone all the time. At the end of the day who gives a toss.

Imagine what would happen if R.Mika somehow made her way to Disney XD

@Nygiantz17 Never said it was the same, just pointed out that skin is skin, but yes, sexualisation does come into it.

Ahhh America... where they think nothing of showing people being shot up on TV but a bit of clothing/skin on a virtual gaming charachter causes outrage.

Ooookay

Yay, more Street Fighter "controversy".

@ShogunRok
I would go as far as to say sexualisation is the whole reason from ESPN's point of view. As a company, they would just be concerned about the backlash they may receive if they did nothing. You know how some people get.

@ShogunRok
By the way. You can't make me put my paints on. I'm a rebel like that.

My first instinct would have been to give two birds and regards to ESPN's mama and kept the costume on. Probably would have lost a lot of money, but even monsters have principles.

kotaku sucks

people make a big deal out of nothing

You are so pathetic guys. The problem is not with the game, it's the media. A tournament on twitch viewed by millions too, but no one make a complaint against character outfits. The problem is the ESPN and media generally who doesn't have a clue all of this scene just giving orders in their dumb way. And now in this comment section you assist them, congrats.

C'mon guys it's her iconic outfit, I find this a bit ridiculous...but if we really want to think past "she's a character not a person", I'd say she's being badass in her attire, not acting like a sexual kitten or anything. It also looks perfectly comfy for all the leg twisting action involved.

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🤐

@Nygiantz17 If you want to "look deeper than that" maybe you should remind yourself that the characters in Street Fighter V aren't actual humans so would have no feelings about being objectified.

@Nygiantz17 How do you know it does not make her fight better i never had the option to ask.😋

It still is total bull to sexy lets stop things like CSI to when they walk on the beach now i know why they cancelled baywatch. Come on mate your reaction holds no ground.

Videogames, especially ones of the fighting variety, are and have always been sexist. If you think otherwise, you're most likely sexist as well. It's pretty damn blatant.

This is one of those things that though there is a valid point buried in there, the execution is ridiculous.

Yes, women are often (but not always) overly sexualised in video games and this is something the industry should address.

However, to interrupt a gaming competition because someone got worried they might get in trouble for too much virtual skin (and making the gamer change) is very very silly. Probably should have checked the game first...

@JoeBlogs ...which is an argument that has no scientific backing whatsoever.

@JoeBlogs Objectification isn't a thing though. Once again, she's not real so trying to defend her feelings is beyond a joke. Finding someone attractive isn't thinking of someone as an object, and anyone who tries to make that argument is kidding themselves. I find the minority of people who whine about this to be quite funny though, so please, do continue. After all, I heard games like Andromeda have done great this year. Company's clutching their pearls about people's feelings really seems to be a sound business strategy.

Just like what happened with Mika last year. Really sad to see this get repeated but worse things could've happened like banning the game completely.

I remember trying to pause the fight in sf2 when Chun li was fighting when I was a Pervy 13 year old to see her knickers.

Good times.

@mantralux: "...which is an argument that has no scientific backing whatsoever." Really? Have you been hanging out on Return Of Kings? There's plenty of scientific studies that come to that conclusion. Not saying it's all convincing, but a case can definitely be made.

@JohnnyBastos Yes, really. I don't know what Return Of Kings is. There are no scientific studies proving that virtual characters showing their buttocks results in the consumer becoming more willing to objectify other people. In fact, just suggesting it does is ridiculous at best. For example: how do you measure objectification?

@JoeBlogs You're right, I shouldn't have put that argument on you and acted like it was your opinion. That was wrong of me and I apologize.

I couldn't disagree more on the subject of objectification though. I'm not sure I know anyone who sees an attractive man/woman on tv and thinks of them as akin to a coffee table or blow up doll. That's part of the whole attraction, especially if they seem to have a personality that clicks with yours. I think the only kind of people who look at others like that are rapists/molesters/awful people. And they're going to do what they're going to do and we can't do anything about it until they infringe on someone else's rights unless we want to become an authoritarian society. Not to mention building out lives around a few nuts is letting them win and the normies get literally nothing out of it.

I've had all these arguments thrown at me by internet feminists and if anything they're destroying the credibility where feminism would help people, ala the middle east.

@thatguyEZ I don't see how you can disbelieve in the concept of objectification, at least on some level. I'm okay if you think you don't objectify people, but it's not as if the problem doesn't exist.

The problem is when people stop treating others as human beings with feelings, and treating them as if their whole purpose was for sex or to look sexy. When people start gauging the worth of others (or themselves) by how sexy they look, you know that objectification is a problem.

I don't know how much you know about sex slavery, or even sexual assault on college campuses, but that is an objectification problem. One people group treats these women as if their feelings didn't matter, and as if their sole purpose was to have sex with them. If objectification didn't exist, these problems wopuldn't either, because these women would have their feelings considered. How do you not believe objectification exists?

Because of the effects we have seen on college campuses that is becoming a huge problem, clearly this issue stems farther than the rapists and molesters you mentioned.

@mantralux How do you measure love? Or any psychological effect for that matter? A concept's ability to be measured does not affect its existence. That's not a particularly strong basis for an argument.

The internet contains vast amounts of knowledge. Sexualization of video game characters can have effects on real life. You can search harder than that before making broad statements based on ignorance.

@Nygiantz17 I simply have never a person who literally see someone as nothing but an object that belongs to them. To be frank, the attractiveness of people has been drilled into us by evolution, and it simply won't be going away anytime soon. Judging whether I want to get serious with a girl on how fit she is is totally normal. After all, there's more likely to be a problem down the road if she doesn't take care of herself. And I honestly feel that objectification is people looking for a problem that doesn't exist.

Of course I know about sex slavery and sexual assualt, but quite frankly I think you're being a bit disingenuous in your argument. Sex slavery is an awful practice, so is regular slaves. It's not as if we've crushed out the problem an men are just taking it easy buying women at the market. If a slave breaks their arm or gets sick they simply off him right there then buy another one. Both of these are terrible practices and we should crush it wherever we find it. I can see where your coming from with it, but trying to push the extremes onto everyone else isn't really gonna fly.

As far as sexual assault on college campuses, I honestly find it a bit funny you'd try to use this to bolster your position. Its pretty widely known that those numbers are massively inflated. Sexual assault isn't some huge problem we need to devote all our time to. Quite frankly I think the entitled attitude students have today is a much bigger problem, look at Evergreen for an example of this. Obviously we should convict people if sufficient evidence proves that they assaulted or raped someone. People arguing that the solution to this problem is to take the accusar at face value and go on a guilty until proven innocent are beyond entitled and wouldn't last a day in a country with laws like that. The fact is rape is a hard crime to prove, especially if the victim waits to talk to the police. That sucks, and my heart goes out to anyone who would have to experience something that awful. My grandmother was raped by 5 guys, so I know how devastating it can be for the victims and their loved ones. But inflating numbers and creating media circuses around accusations doesn't help anyone. In fact I'd argue it hurts victims more than it helps. After it came out that the Jackie chick from the rolling stone article came out as a liar it makes it more likely for people to deny or downplay a true victims feelings. Women in the developed world today are some of the safest people to have ever lived. Its also not hard to see why people in the media/faculty would be pretty cool with fudging the numbers. The media gets big numbers from people thinking some plague is taking over colleges today and it creates new jobs for faculty members.

And no, I don't think it extends much farther the rapists and molesters. Certainly people who kidnap and sell people on the black market are a larger target and far more deserving of a bullet to the face, but I don't see some huge systemic problem. It comes down to individuals. Someone has trauma as a child or is simply nuts and goes to try and make people hurt as much as them. A guy has a fetish for children and thus goes out trying to get is fix. And once again, someone kidnapping a selling people. You really can't do much about these things until they actually violate someone else's rights or breaks the law. Once that occurs I'm all for throwing the full weight of the law at them and putting them away for the rest of their lives. But these are things we're never going to get rid of these things unless we put eyes on out brains and ascend to a higher plane, ala Bloodborne. I'm down to attempt to crush these out of existance, but throwing money and attention to places where it does nothing doesn't help people. Women on college campuses are safer than those off campus. 1.2 times less likely to be raped/assualted than the general population as of a 2014 study by Bureau of Justice Statistics. Of course that's more about wealth and the kinds of people who have access to higher education than college itself, but I still think it proves my point.

Once again, I'm down with raising awareness about these kinds of issues, but putting money where it doesn't help and infringing on the artistic vision of game developers helps no one and embitters people to the people fighting for these things. I mean just look at things like GamerGate and the lasting impact of people pushing back against people who lie and try to take control away from game developers all because they have an opinion. Its a joke, and internet feminism has done absolutely nothing but make the rest of feminism look like a joke as well. These internet feminists are quick to whine about something like Dead or Alive Xtreme 3 but are absolutely silent, and in some cases defending, the brutal treatment of women in the middle east and more and more in Europe. I mean jesus, acid attacks have doubled in London alone over the past year and internet feminists are still screeching about how Islam is a feminist religion. Its a joke, and I hope you can see why people see it as a joke and how they've hurt true victims in the process.

I enjoy talking to you though man, I hope we're all good. Its just a fun little talk about the world and I just don't get to go off like this regularly. :3

Edit: Jesus Christ dude, I din't think it was that long -_-

@Nygiantz17

"How do you measure love?"

You don't, which is my point. No one can claim that positive video games creates more love in the world, nor can they claim negative video games can create more hatred.

"A concept's ability to be measured does not affect its existence."

No but it effects its ability to be used in a scientific study. You're welcome to explain to me how you should measure objectification as a direct result of a video game.

"The internet contains vast amounts of knowledge. Sexualization of video game characters can have effects on real life."

There you go again. "Can have"...based on what?

@thatguyEZ So I really appreciate your willingness to talk about this, because whether I'm right or you are, it's clearly a clouded topic in today's society. I enjoy talking to you too, I hope I don't come off as rude or condescending, I really respect your opinions =)

Just a clarification, when I say objectification, I don't mean people literally think of a person as an object. I mean de-personalizing people, where you no longer think of them as human beings with their own emotions, goals, dreams, and personalities. This can mean slavery, like owning a person, but it is also as simple as seeing them as something only sexually attractive, and nothing more. This is seen most often in strip clubs, forced prostitution, and in pornography.

I don't disagree with you that sexual attraction is good and natural. I'm recently married, I understand that when you meet someone, you want to learn more about them and are also physically attracted to them. When I speak of objectification, I'm talking about when you no longer care about the other persons feelings, only about their body, or about having sex with them. People who make women have sex against their will, or perform sexual acts, are objectifying women. This is obviously the more serious cases of objectification, but it also is prominent in more minor instances when women become more or less "valuable" based on their sex appeal. It's no coincidence that more attractive women tend to move higher in the work place or are more likely to persuade people to get what they want. Favoritism based on sexual appeal is still a form of objectification.

I'm not really sure where you are getting your ideas/statistics on campus sexual assault though. I agreed with your statement regarding the Bureau of Justice statistics about rape likelihood, but you can also find that almost 1/4th (23%) of females on college campus experience rape or sexual assault. Does that not seem like way too much to you? That's pretty awful that in one of the safest countries for women in the world, they still have a 23% chance to be sexually assaulted just in college, not even including before and after that.

Now I'm on of the first people to be reluctant to trust what certain media outlets and headlines would report, believe me. That's why I look up more solid sources on this. But if anything, these statistics are underestimating the problem here, as getting women to report their sexual abuse has historically been difficult.

As far as sex slavery goes, I didn't fully understand your example about slaves and arm breaking. I'm talking about individuals who are abducted and forced to have sex or participate in pornography against their will. in 2012, it was estimated that 20.9 million people worldwide are sex slaves.

To relate objectification back to video games, I was reading a study earlier that talked about women in video games. The more prominent/important a role a female character plays in a video game, the more modestly or normal she tends to look. But the less important a character is, the less complex a personality she has and the more she tends to have exaggerated proportions or dress more sexually. Just something I thought was interesting.

@JoeBlogs

"However, I would argue that what we watch/play must have an effect on us. If it didn't, then why bother?"

All I said was that your argument isn't supported by any scientific facts, so the discussion is pointless: we can't measure your claims, so they will forever remain unproven.

I personally don't believe watching a slasher film turns you into a murderer. I also don't believe watching porn makes you a rapist. So logically I don't believe skimpy outfits in Street Fighter V makes you a misogynist.

"can you really be so sure that seeing hundreds and hundreds of ads, films, games etc. has no effect on our long-term attitudes/behaviour?"

Let me ask you this: do you objectify men because of all the action movies coming out of Hollywood in the last 50 years? They all have superhuman strengths, bare torsos with impossible physiques and are able to withstand insane amounts of pain and damage. In other words, do you degrade all men to mere grunts?

I actually had a discussion about this kind of stuff with a friend recently. Making an issue over this nonsense is what keeps people like him from trying to get real stuff done. 'Oh my God! A woman in a video game dressed in skimpy clothing, it's going to push society back 500 years and force them all into the kitchen!' It's ridiculous on ESPN's part, period, but it doesn't shock me with the way people act these days either.

@JoeBlogs

"If we follow this to its logical conclusion, then all of psychology is pointless"

If you argue that objectification is measurable then please tell me how you think that would work. The debate is ridiculous. What if I suddenly claim that eating porridge changes the way people feel negatively about curly hair. I can't provide any evidence to back up my claim, and there is no way we can measure "anti-curly hair" feelings...but I'm just gonna continue arguing because who is going to prove me wrong?

The burden of evidence is on the person claiming something is true. You are claiming that showing buttocks in Street Fighter V increases objectification of women. I say: prove it? Not an unreasonable request.

"No doubt hours of exposure to He-Man, Batman, Spider-Man, Indiana Jones, Action Force, TMNT, Thundercats etc. as a child had some kind of impact on my view of what a boy/man is"

Except that isn't what I asked. I asked:

"do you degrade all men to mere grunts"

Your own theory is that skimpy bikinis on polygons made to look like female humans turns people into misogynists. Following that logic, skimpy clothing on polygons made to look like male humans will turn people into misandrists. Right?

@mantralux have you even tried googling for 5 minutes before making such claims about "no scientific evidence"? You're just wrong buddy.

Regardless, respect to all for the civil nature of the discussion. My general take on topics like this: ask women what they think.

@JohnnyBastos

"My general take on topics like this: ask women what they think"

Well I don't want to embarrass you but I am a woman, so there goes that argument. Feel free to link to these scientific papers on how to measure objectification. Going to be an interesting read.

@JoeBlogs

"Clearly, the feeling is that this type of thing either influences or reinforces our attitudes"

Key word: feeling. It has no basis in facts or reality. People think it could influence people but there is no evidence to say it does. We've had this argument with all media throughout history. In the 1800s people thought reading certain books would lead to the demise of society. People thought listening to Ozzy Osbourne turned you into a devil worshipper. People thought playing Call Of Duty made you violent. And here we are in 2017 and people like you think buttocks in video games turns gamers into misogynists.

@ToddlerNaruto thank you!

@mantralux Ha, that was unexpected! I am a little embarrassed that I assumed you were male, yes. Doesn't counter my point though as I mean women plural.

Here's some links on the measurement of objectification of women:

http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1039&context=psych_honproj

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797611434748

http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=psych_honproj

http://stars.library.ucf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5805&context=etd

There's a lot more about the effects of objectification, but I sense a touch of sarcasm in your voice so I won't waste either of our time.

@JohnnyBastos

I'm not going to read through papers from sources that are unknown to me just to find out the answer to my question, why don't you just answer it instead of giving me homework? Since you have read all of those links you should be able to answer it, right?

The question is: how do you measure objectification?

Posting a bunch of links isn't actually an answer.

" Doesn't counter my point though as I mean women plural"

Well you said "ask women what they think", and here you have an answer from a woman...but you disregard that by essentially saying "no no I mean more than just you". Did you mean to say "ask women who share my opinion on the matter what they think"?

@JoeBlogs

"Why then do you simplify my position as me thinking that 'buttocks in video games turns gamers into misogynists'?"

Because that is what the article is about. You now seem to have changed your mind to instead share my opinion which is that it's impossible to measure so any conclusions on the subject are guesswork at best. I welcome your change in position on the matter.

All I have said from the start is that there is no scientific basis for your claims. You are welcome to an opinion, as long as you don't portray that opinion as having any sort of validity, because it doesn't.

"nobody really believes that it is only a few games that will turn a normal person with respect for women into a misogynist"

Someone from ESPN does, apparently.

I think I've sufficiently backed up both my points @mantralux I only shared links because you asked me to.

@JohnnyBastos

You haven't sufficiently backed up your point at all, but I do understand you wanting to back out now seeing as how you won't be able to answer the question.

As for your papers, seeing as how I asked for them I actually had a little read through and they weren't what I asked for.

The first one is an honors project from Illinois Wesleyan University written by a student who thinks looking at a woman's body before looking at her face is sexism. Not very scientific.

The second one has a sample size of 78, which, if you'd know anything about statistics, is a ridiculously low sample size for any measure. The margin of error is basically 100% at sample sizes below a couple of hundred. But even then they struggle to define their own definition of objectification.

The third one is another student at Illinois Wesleyan University deciding "retest validity" of the previous paper which was pure to begin with. His sample size was 60.

The fourth is just the same as the others, albeit with a larger sample size of 675. This one is mildly interesting because the conclusion is that women objectify themselves and other women more than men objectify women, and then there are about 20 different hypothesis at the end about what this data means.

However: none of these papers measure objectivity (which is what I asked for). They are mostly college papers with very low sample sizes and extremely vague and differing definitions of what constitutes "objectification". To define objectification they must draw a number of subjective conclusions as variables in the equation.

You would know this if you had actually read the links you submitted.

_{Language -Tasuki-}

Yes @mantralux, I am backing out. You're raising the burden of proof, and moving away from the original point about existence of evidence. By all means consider yourself victorious; I don't have any comebacks.

What did you think of the Destiny Beta?

@JohnnyBastos

How am I moving away? I not only read the links you provided, I also gave you reasons as to why they weren't what I asked for.

Burden of proof is raised because you and others are claiming that objectification is measurable - a silly claim at best. And so I have asked for evidence of this claim, of which none has actually been offered. All you did was google "how to measure objectification" and posting the first four links that came up without reading it yourself.

I'm still interested in getting scientific evidence on how to measure objectification, and subsequently how to apply that measurement to draw a conclusion that showing buttocks in Street Fighter V increases objectification towards women in society.

Hey @mantralux To answer your question:

The original issue was about whether evidence exists, not whether the evidence is compelling. If we don't have an agreed or fixed definition of what counts as "evidence" then there is no way to resolve the disagreement. Guess we'll just have to beg to differ.

@JohnnyBastos

By that logic, evidence exists for the earth being flat. It's just not compelling enough.

Just because I submit a paper with very loose subjective definitions and very small sample sizes doesn't actually mean that evidence now exists and people can start referencing it as basis for argument.

Definition for what counts as evidence has been given numerous times in this thread: scientifically proven. That is the standard I have given, hence why I keep asking for scientifically proven methods of measuring objectification towards women, and not just opinions on the matter.

Or we could just agree to what I think we both know: it's impossible to measure objectification since it's a highly abstract term that even lacks an anchor in a positive/negative spectrum. Even if objectification exists, there is nothing that says it's inherently negative.

One of the definitions in the papers you linked to was "looking at a woman's body before looking at her face", as if the face is less part of her physique than her arms, neck or legs. But why would it be inherently negative to look at a woman's arms before looking at her face, and why would that automatically mean you "degrade someone to the status of a mere object" (the definition of objectification).