Because I still think it’s disgusting.
From Kotaku:
Let’s play this down the middle, as much we can. “Costumed representatives,” are there to make a physical appearance, both sides would agree. But Iola is right: Neither Comic-Con, nor E3, nor any other convention, is a strip club. It’s no more appropriate to assume she’s there for casual opposite-sex companionship than it would be to think a well dressed public relations professional – who’s also there to promote a product and likewise is expected to look good on the job – is after the same thing.
The problem is that EA’s promotion projected just that image – not only on their own reps, but reps of other companies as well, whether or not it was consistent with the spirit or tradition of Comic-Con, E3, or any other show. That’s the reason for the furor, and that’s why you got an apology.
The whole post is worth reading, as it includes comments from a self-proclaimed costumed rep who’s suffered through much obnoxious behavior at cons.
The comparison to a strip club, however, struck me as particularly apt. Because it’s NOT what Comic-Con is supposed to be. Yet by projecting the idea that cons are for boys, the corresponding assumption that any girl who is there is there for the sexual gratification of the male attendees (and thus the attendant reaction to the Twilight-fangirls who are there for their own damn visual sexual gratification, thank you very much) is not only prevalent among attendees, but played to by just this sort of promotion.
I find it interesting that the most egregious examples of this stuff came from video game companies. Am I strange in noting this?
July 27th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
On one hand, knuckle-dragging/stalking behavior is absolutely wrong. On the other hand, these reps, even more than female cosplayers, are dressing specifically to entice fanboys. So there’s a little bit of hypocrisy in complaining about customers behaving in a manor that’s just on the far extreme of what they’re trying to achieve. I mean, it’s not like they’re not wearing business suits here.
July 27th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
I get so angry with behaviour like the kind that this promotion was encouraging. I get very upset when people make comments about how comics are only for men and when accusations are made that it’s a sexist industry/hobby, and then some jackasses out there go and pull stuff like this.
There are no words for this promotion. No, I take it back, there are words: sexist, disgusting and demeaning come to mind.
July 27th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
No, MrWesley, the reps are DOING THEIR JOB. Their EMPLOYERS have hired them to entice fanboys. It’s a subtle difference, but an important one. Because the employers aren’t the ones who get groped, the reps are.
For that matter, I repudiate the idea that most female cosplayers are dressing to entice fanboys. They cosplay because they like X character or Y costume. And believe it or not, MrWesley, women often like to feel sexy for THEIR OWN gratification, NOT any and all male onlookers. It’s a predictable side-effect, of course, but that doesn’t change the fact that, for the most part, sexy female cosplayers AREN’T directly intended for teh menz!
And you know that old line, “Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose”? Fanboys’ rights to express admiration for an attractive woman ends at her body and the word “NO.”
July 27th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
E3 went a year without booth babes awhile back after it was agreed that the practice was getting out of hand. It didn’t last, of course. Maybe it’ll be scaled back at the Con next year?
July 27th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Alexa, I’m not trying to imply that the fanboys’ behavior is anything other than abhorent. At the very least, it makes the rest of us look incredibly bad.
And I misspoke when I implied that cosplayers are trying to entice other convention goers. I think there’s a vast difference between showcasing your work in creating an accurate Wonder Woman outfit, and a woman who is paid to dress like a Ghostbuster in a bikini. (That’s just one photo I remember from the con coverage–I don’t know if the woman in the photo was a convention goer or a booth babe, but you get my meaning.)
What I am trying to say, I guess, is that I’m saddened at the fact that there are companies out there at all that specialize in providing booth babes to conventions and trade shows of all types, with the specific intention to cater to baser instincts of the customers. And worse, I’m saddened by the fact that this stuff works. From what I understand, you can have a pretty good (albeit short) career as a booth babe.
But when your job as a convention model is to get people into your booth using your looks and personality, some amount of flirtation is expected. When that happens, someone occasionally taking things too far is inevitable. It has to be an expected danger of the job. So models shouldn’t be surprised when it does eventually happen, and they should take precautions to protect themselves from those kinds of situtions.
July 27th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
I remember full well the behavior of acclaim before their collapse with trying to get people to name their child turok, or trying to sell adspace on tombstones.
But EA did cross the line as it involved people who were not involved (nor did they want to be.) It’s not about the perception of booth babes, its the fact that the campaign tried to include every female guest in the con.
July 27th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
“No, MrWesley, the reps are DOING THEIR JOB. Their EMPLOYERS have hired them to entice fanboys. It’s a subtle difference, but an important one. Because the employers aren’t the ones who get groped, the reps are.”
That’s like saying the prostitutes are just doing their job, but it is the pimps that have them on the stroll to entice johns.
July 27th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
I agree with a lot of this post. But…
“the corresponding assumption that any girl who is there is there for the sexual gratification of the male attendees…”
Really? Who, exactly, is making this corresponding assumption? I think that’s a pretty big leap to suggest that a guy who lusts over a booth babe is suddenly going to get handsy with a non-costumed comic or TV fan who walks by.
In fact, the issue at hand here suggests quite the opposite. The suggestion, as wrong as it is, is that the way booth babes dress gives the men at these conventions the idea that it’s okay to grope them, when that’s simply not the case.
And while I find Jeremiah’s post annoying, he’s got a point: this has nothing to do with Twilight. I hate to say it, but every time you make a weak link back to that subject, you undermine the core of what you’re talking about.
Just food for thought.
July 28th, 2009 at 7:33 am
I don’t think any of the booth babes are surprised when it happens, but that doesn’t mean they should just shut up and take it.
Here’s the problem: on other boards, I’ve seen guys say, “Well if I walked through a bad neighborhood with $100 bills sticking out of my pockets, I couldn’t be surprised if I got shot. Ergo, girls should cover up the way I keep my money tucked away and avoid bad neighborhoods.” While I don’t deny those situations are similar, there’s a HUGE difference is that NO ONE will try to argue that the guy who shot you didn’t do something terribly wrong and should pay for it. But in the minds of many people, when a girl dresses in a certain way, it ABSOLVES her harassers of their violations. (Don’t believe me, go read the comments on other boards)
Likewise, it’s still possible for you to get shot in a bad neighborhood even if you have no money on you, just like it’s possible for a woman to get harassed while wearing conservative clothes. Is the Middle East is a rape-free zone because the women tend to be covered from head to toe? HELL NO. Sexual harassment, assault, and rape are NEVER the fault of the woman. No amount of “enticing” excuses nonconsensual sexual acts being forced on them.
July 28th, 2009 at 10:58 am
“And while I find Jeremiah’s post annoying, he’s got a point: this has nothing to do with Twilight. I hate to say it, but every time you make a weak link back to that subject, you undermine the core of what you’re talking about.”
You mean, the post that’s not there anymore?
Yet another example of ridiculous over-moderation here at NuRama.
Just because you censor people who disagree with you doesn’t make you right. There was nothing in my post that violated this website’s terms of service. All caps, yes, but no less obnoxious than the constant inclusion of a fangirl grudge that the author insists on dragging into every article she writes, regardless of how tangential the connection.
You want award-winning coverage and articles people want to read and comment on? This is NOT the way to go about it.
July 28th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
I too would like to cry “BS” to whomever (whether it was Sarah or the Imaginova folks) that pulled the initial Jeremiah comment earlier (I read the comment myself this morning); really stifles the conversation when comments mysteriously disappear and is a great reason NOT to read future articles by the author or ‘rama if it persists.
July 28th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
I also want to add that I think people are not doing the conversation justice either, by tying the EA promotion to an endorsement of sexual harassment. The “sin” “lewd” etc terms used in the ad is in line with the main sell PRODUCT; it’s like when Marvel implores people to have a “wall-crawling” good-time with Spideramn–they’re not actually telling you to go climb the Sears Tower, it’s lingo to “complete” the world of the product and engage the consumer.
I mean really; read critically. A lot of the rest of the argument treads being actually debatable, but this is a point that both this forum and the other blogs seemed to have missed. Bit of a rush to incite anger I suppose.
July 28th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
@Jeremiah and Tre
There was no censorship or stifling of the conversation caused by the post that I removed. First off, the post contributed nothing to the conversation; it was unduly rude. Secondly, being unduly rude can indeed get a post removed, and Jeremiah was unduly rude.
Go ahead and disagree, that’s fine, but try to have some tact about it.
July 28th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
My post contributed plenty to the conversation. Complaining about TWILIGHT shouldn’t make it’s way into every article Jaffe writes, especially when there’s already an article devoted to that very subject.
I didn’t break any rules and removing my comment was a knee-jerk reaction to the criticism, which was essentially calling someone out for being a hypocrite (disliking a comics culture stereotype for disliking another genre stereotype).
You can’t be rude to or generalize “male attendees” without expecting some bit of your own medicine.
If you want to have a conversation about booth babes, that’s fine because there’s plenty to say about the subject that needs to be said but don’t use another news story as a platform to continually pick at another grudge. Three stories complaining about TWILIGHT in as many days is a bit overkill.
Pointing this out and “being unduly rude” are two different things.
July 28th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
I don’t know if I see how my comment lacked tact. I merely said “if someone pulled the comment, that seems BS” (to paraphrase). And I stand by that. I will admit to not recalling Jeremiah’s comment word for word, but considering the statements that I DO typically see on N’rama, I don’t remember thinking “wow, what an assholish reply”. But maybe I’m just numb to it now.
And frankly, the repetitive intrusion of the now passed Twilight scene seems to also not add anything to the conversation in my opinion. Which I think might’ve been the initial point of his post.
Bottom line, I like a spirited discussion, but I’m not about to get my boxers in a bunch about an internet debate around comic book convention behavior (good or bad), so please don’t take my comments as overly confrontational, etc.
July 28th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
“…there’s a HUGE difference in that NO ONE will try to argue that the guy who shot you didn’t do something terribly wrong and should pay for it. But in the minds of many people, when a girl dresses in a certain way, it ABSOLVES her harassers of their violations.”
QFT. Well said, Alexa. I don’t go to cons, and this is one of the reasons why.
July 28th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Oh, and Troy? Regardless of posts being removed, will ANYTHING ever be done about these javascript errors when trying to post? No, it’s not relevant, so feel freet remove it, but it’s been long enough. I can work around it. but it’s an unnecessary pain.
July 28th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
“so feel free to remove it,” I mean.
July 28th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Shaun, let me step in to tell you I have a meeting about it this week, and hope to have a change implemented inside of the next couple weeks. Thanks for your patience, and for continuing to contribute to the Blog@ comments sections on a regular basis despite the issues. I PROMISE the complaint/problem is heard, and it’s a major point for me.
August 5th, 2009 at 1:24 am
@Alexa: ‘Fanboys’ rights to express admiration for an attractive woman ends at her body and the word “NO.”’
Actually, I’d go further. Fanboys’ rights to express admiration for an attractive woman end at the word “No” (or “Eww” or whatever). The moment anyone does anything someone finds offensive, the behaviour should stop. And I am male, just in case anyone’s wondering.
@Mr Wesley: ‘But when your job as a convention model is to get people into your booth using your looks and personality, some amount of flirtation is expected. When that happens, someone occasionally taking things too far is inevitable. It has to be an expected danger of the job.’
True, sex sells. But it’s one thing to be hired to be visually enticing, it’s another thing (imho) to be hired to be enticing and then set up as a target. That’s like a soldier being sent on a suicide mission without being told it’s a suicide mission. “Into the valley of death rode the six hundred…”
@Jeremiah Allan: ‘You want award-winning coverage and articles people want to read and comment on? This is NOT the way to go about it.’
To quote P.T. Barnum: “Publicity is good. Good publicity is even better.”
August 5th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
To paraphrase many of the arguments I’ve seen for EA not being out of line or that the contest wasn’t so bad, “If women would quit being sexy, we wouldn’t have to be dicks to them.”
That’s actually what you’re saying when you just tell women to “cover up” or use that ludicrous “walking in bad neighborhood with $100 bills sticking out of your pockets” analogy.
I really do not think it so much to ask that basic levels of courtesy be extended to everyone regardless of their genitalia.