Comments | mgs_slash: Pairing Meta: The Appeal of Snake/Otacon from a Male Perspective

outofmysystem87 in mgs_slash

Pairing Meta: The Appeal of Snake/Otacon from a Male Perspective

Sep 11, 2008 10:06

Whilst I am still working on my second story (thanks to Khronos_Keeper and Imre_Nico for agreeing to be my beta-buddies), I decided to do something I promised to do for a long time: an essay about Snake/Otacon slash from a male perspective. I managed to write this pretty quickly, so if you need clarification/elaboration/etc, feel free to ask.

Essay ( Read more... )

2008, outer heaven!!!, wank, my pre-boss-battle speech, snake/otacon, i hate your lack of penises, married to otacon on the astral plane, i hate my penis, voted off the show, war has changed, got the flawed recessive genes, a hind d?, meta discussion, my otp should be yours too

Leave a comment

Back to all threads

Re: I have a headache so responses are short ._. outofmysystem87 September 12 2008, 03:11:00 UTC

If you mean, quite literally, "on the street" then you are correct. However, Sony DID market the hell out of the game, it marketed a niche title like a mainstream title. I mean, more people play Halo 3 than MGS (note, I'm not defending Halo 3, it's a pretty good game but it is overrated).

As for hardcore, "hardcore game" and "high difficulty" are different things. BioShock is a hardcore game but on it's easy difficulty level it is easy to play. I mean accessibility in terms of gameplay. Complex gameplay = hardcore, simple gameplay = casual. MGS is complex.

If you are talking about the kind of feminism that seeks to reach concepts of gender that are NOT influenced by political concerns (i.e. a concept of female that isn't engineered to make women easy to dominate), then I have no problem with that. That's the "Soft Foucauldian" type of feminism. My problem is with the "Hard Foucauldian" type, which says ALL concepts of gender are INEVITABLY political in nature. It's debatable whether Foucault actually believed anything like this, but that is beside the point. I will concede, soft Foucauldian interpretations are ones I come across more commonly than hard ones.

As for the offense, if you felt any, I apologize. Will keep the audience in mind in the future.

I do not know what you mean by gender bias. I assume you mean the popular sentiment that "if a man says it, it is not tainted by gender considerations, if a woman says it, it is tainted by gender considerations" (implying that man is the neutral 'human norm' and woman is a sex-specific deviation from that norm), I agree with you that this sentiment is ridiculous. A message should be judged by its content, not by the messenger.

Back to all threads