Home
Editorials
Firearms
Interactive Fiction
Role-playing Games
Books
Music
TV/Movies
Quintin Stone

Current And Past Projects:

notablog

<< Previous      Search Archive      
A female cosplayer's view
I just saw this write-up on the Simon Pegg dust-up: http://storify.com/chloedykstra/simon-pegg-should-know-better

This perspective comes from a female cosplayer who thinks there was nothing wrong with Pegg's comments. "Actually, in my very controversial opinion, you might be setting women back with this kind of stuff- because people just get annoyed, build up a negative opinion of feminists, and their arguments become less effective."

Permalink   Filed under: Rant, Society, Internet

Blogger accuses Simon Pegg of sexism, objectifying cosplayers
Here's blogger Courtney Stoker laying into Simon Pegg for some appreciative comments he made about Comic-con attendees dressing up like Princess Leia: http://storify.com/cnstoker/cosplayers-are-geeks-too

Did Pegg claim the Leia cosplayers were there to fulfill his sexual fantasies? Since Stoker makes the claim multiple times, let's take a look at that first. Clearly the phrase "sexual fantasies" doesn't appear in any of his tweets. Did he imply it then? "I've got a thing about cosplay girls" he says. "They're like zombie stormtroopers, a glorious combination of beloved things." Then he posts the pic and describes Homer Simpsons trademark sound of desire.

Does Simon Pegg have a sexual fantasy regarding Leia cosplayers, and what is it? It's not clear because he, of course, never mentions sex or sexual fantasies. But here's the thing: a sexual fantasy by definition involves sex. So it's really unlikely that just looking at a picture of girls in bikinis fulfills any kind of fantasy. That wouldn't be much of a fantasy! An actual sexual fantasy would involving having sex with them. Did Simon Pegg say he was going to have sex with them? No. Did he claim that the whole reason they dressed up was to sex him up good and proper? Of course not. Did he suggest that they were "existing solely for [his] fantasies"? Fuck no.

So bullshit count so far: 1.

Stoker's other initial accusation is one of objectification. She doesn't entirely explain how Simon objectified them, or what she means by the term. Online dictionaries are rather sparse on its meaning, so let's see what Wikipedia has to say:

"Sexual objectification refers to the practice of regarding or treating another person merely as an instrument (object) towards one's sexual pleasure, and a sex object is a person who is regarded simply as an object of sexual gratification or who is sexually attractive. Objectification more broadly is an attitude that regards a person as a commodity or as an object for use, with little or no regard for a person's personality or sentience."

In Stoker's view, how did Simon objectify the women? She doesn't say in her tweets. She just repeats "objectifying" and "turning women into objects". Is it expression appreciation, or the way he did it? Here's what she says on her blog: "This kind of attitude is really common and really destructive. It reduces cosplayers down to objects, and suggests that they are NOT fellow geeks, but actually decoration. They are only there to serve as fantasy fodder for male geeks. You know, the actual PEOPLE in this equation. (A good sign you're objectifying women: you're comparing them to food.)" What attitude is she talking about? Saying they're a combination of beloved things? He never specifies what those beloved things are. It's probably the donut reference that really got to her.

Except he wasn't comparing the girls to donuts. Homer Simpson is a notorious oaf who makes a gurgling sound when he sees anything, food or otherwise, that fills him with longing; donuts are probably the most iconic subject. Simon was trying to pick something self-deprecating and humorous that almost everyone would recognize. Was it a crude method of expressing appreciation for beauty? Yeah, definitely. Was he saying that the women are objects, that they're like food to be eaten? No. God no.

Bullshit count: 2

Finally, she talks about agency. "Sexuality implies some agency on their part." What I don't even. As if these women were forced, at gun point, to make and then wear these costumes. The slave Leia costume, worn only in 1 part of 1 Star Wars movie, when Leia was captive of the disgusting Jabba the Hutt and forced to deal with his advances and nasty slimy tongue. An outfit so revealing and sexy that it became an iconic symbol of geek fantasies for decades to follow. (On Friends, Jennifer Aniston's character even wears it at Ross' request.) Stoker would have us believe that not only are these cosplayers completely unaware of the history of the costume, they are also completely oblivious to the fact that wearing a bikini costume expresses some kind of sexuality, and then of course she'd also have us believe they had absolutely no choice in the matter.

Bullshit count: 3, 4, 5!

Hopefully, in the future, Simon Pegg will have a little more sense than to try and engage the loonies, assholes, and trolls that go out of their way to pick a fight with him.

Permalink   Filed under: Rant, People, Internet

Some people call him Maurice
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:15:17 -0400
From: Ryan North <ryanqnorth@gmail.com>
To: Quintin Stone <stone@rps.net>
Subject: Re: NICE TRY, SPENCER

Absolutely!

On 14/03/2012 11:33 AM, Quintin Stone wrote:
> Does Spencer speak of the pompitous of love?

Permalink   Filed under: Internet, Personal

Skyrim: Next mod

Here's some before-and-after shots from the first stage of my next mod (utility mod, adds new types of weapon stands, containers, some fixes, and more).

In vanilla Skyrim, there are just some weapons you don't want to put on a shield/weapon plaque. Basically anything that's not symmetrical except for battleaxes, which they managed to get right.

Permalink   Filed under: Games, Personal
<< Previous      Search Archive      

notablog RSS 2.0 feed
These pages Copyright © 2004-2008 — Contact me at stone@rps.net