@Yorumi The thesis of this article is obvious not only from its title, tone, and poll question, but from specific comments like these:
"Nintendo seems to be content to take perhaps its most iconic female character and continually present her in a sexualised fashion."
"This aspect of the series [sexualised/disrobed Samus] that had usually been reserved for the very end of each game has now become an integral part of Samus’ public image."
"She’s arguably more sexualised than she’s ever been before, with stiletto heels, heavy makeup, and a notably enlarged bosom."
"The company doesn't seem to be interested in Metroid without the sexualised Zero Suit Samus."
And the article concludes this way:
"It's a shame [Samus is] depicted with a Barbie-like figure in eye shadow and bikinis" followed by hoping that Retro Studios will reinvent the character in a less sexualized manner.
Why is it a shame? Because the thesis of the article is that this depiction is excessive. The author is saying that Non-Power-Suit Samus going from being primarily used in endings to increasingly being used in other stages of the games (Game Over screens, Smash Bros appearance, etc.) is excessive. Criticizing her design as "pandering" and having "ridiculous", "unrealistic" proportions means arguing that her design is literally excessive, in that it exceeds normal proportions.
Again, the definition of excessive is "beyond what is acceptable." Clearly the article thinks its unacceptable that Samus is depicted this way. Otherwise why would it be a "shame" and why would there be a need for "hope"? The author thinks what he sees as excessive sexualization is significant and a negative development for the character and for Nintendo; this is the thesis of the article.
Therefore, by this poll, the vast majority of people who voted disagree with that thesis. Not even close to 50-50.
@Bolt_Strike No, read the question again: Sexualized excessively. Most people in this poll disagree that she has been sexualized excessively.
Definition of excessive - more than or beyond what is acceptable
If you don't think its a significant issue, then it is "beyond acceptable." Furthermore, it was a major feature of this article that it's a big deal that Samus has been excessively sexualized culminating in this alternate costume and the vast majority of poll voters disagreed. (The article made this claim notwithstanding the fact that this alternate costume originally appeared over a decade ago in the Metroid series.)
In other words, nearly 80% of the people who took this poll disagree with the very thesis of this article: that Samus has been excessively sexualized. Not even close to 50%-50%.
"Do you feel Samus has been sexualized excessively by Nintendo, culminating in these Smash Bros outfits?"
The vast majority of the people who voted in your poll say "No." (Nearly 80%)
Keep that in mind when writing future political-style editorials. Step outside of the all-too-typical liberal echo chamber of journalists. No one is impressed.
Comments 3
Re: Talking Point: A History of the Sexualisation of Samus
@Yorumi The thesis of this article is obvious not only from its title, tone, and poll question, but from specific comments like these:
"Nintendo seems to be content to take perhaps its most iconic female character and continually present her in a sexualised fashion."
"This aspect of the series [sexualised/disrobed Samus] that had usually been reserved for the very end of each game has now become an integral part of Samus’ public image."
"She’s arguably more sexualised than she’s ever been before, with stiletto heels, heavy makeup, and a notably enlarged bosom."
"The company doesn't seem to be interested in Metroid without the sexualised Zero Suit Samus."
And the article concludes this way:
"It's a shame [Samus is] depicted with a Barbie-like figure in eye shadow and bikinis" followed by hoping that Retro Studios will reinvent the character in a less sexualized manner.
Why is it a shame? Because the thesis of the article is that this depiction is excessive. The author is saying that Non-Power-Suit Samus going from being primarily used in endings to increasingly being used in other stages of the games (Game Over screens, Smash Bros appearance, etc.) is excessive. Criticizing her design as "pandering" and having "ridiculous", "unrealistic" proportions means arguing that her design is literally excessive, in that it exceeds normal proportions.
Again, the definition of excessive is "beyond what is acceptable." Clearly the article thinks its unacceptable that Samus is depicted this way. Otherwise why would it be a "shame" and why would there be a need for "hope"? The author thinks what he sees as excessive sexualization is significant and a negative development for the character and for Nintendo; this is the thesis of the article.
Therefore, by this poll, the vast majority of people who voted disagree with that thesis. Not even close to 50-50.
Re: Talking Point: A History of the Sexualisation of Samus
@Bolt_Strike No, read the question again: Sexualized excessively. Most people in this poll disagree that she has been sexualized excessively.
Definition of excessive - more than or beyond what is acceptable
If you don't think its a significant issue, then it is "beyond acceptable." Furthermore, it was a major feature of this article that it's a big deal that Samus has been excessively sexualized culminating in this alternate costume and the vast majority of poll voters disagreed. (The article made this claim notwithstanding the fact that this alternate costume originally appeared over a decade ago in the Metroid series.)
In other words, nearly 80% of the people who took this poll disagree with the very thesis of this article: that Samus has been excessively sexualized. Not even close to 50%-50%.
Re: Talking Point: A History of the Sexualisation of Samus
"Do you feel Samus has been sexualized excessively by Nintendo, culminating in these Smash Bros outfits?"
The vast majority of the people who voted in your poll say "No." (Nearly 80%)
Keep that in mind when writing future political-style editorials. Step outside of the all-too-typical liberal echo chamber of journalists. No one is impressed.