Funny how people who agree with you are 'right', and people who disagree with you are 'not'. Men who disagree are sexist, hormonal pigs, women who disagree are deluded and propping up the system that's oppressing them, "OPEN YOUR EYES SISTER!"
This is an ad-hominem strawman argument that relies on Hyperbole. You're depicting Lady Dwarf as a raging feminist stereotype and attempting to beat her down on the basis of being that raging feminist stereotype.
The Rule of Cool is an important rule to follow. I just wish the rule of cool applied equally to both sexes. Rather than "Sexy" being cool for women while "Strong" is cool for men.
The whole problem with your argument about "Real Life" and "A Product" is that the product exists in real life, not in a vacuum. If your argument were to be taken to it's logical extension there'd be no argument against sexism in advertising, movies, books, and the like. Media -surrounds- us, Finis. Just because it doesn't poke you in the eye doesn't mean it doesn't poke the woman next to you in the eye. Trying to say it's okay because it's one limited example of the overarching sexism in the media is like excusing one "Product Failure" that ends in someone injured while there are thousands of other identical "Product Failures" going on around it.
-Rachel-
Great Weapon Fighter tanks? Who are you kidding? Cleric tanks. They draw -all- the aggro.
And yes, Kharnis. He wouldn't be able to lift his arm up to chest level. Of course that's conflating a POWER Fantasy with a SEXUAL Fantasy.
Alopexia: Show me an argument that "Pokes a Whole" in my argument and I'll give it a rebuttal. There haven't been any, thus far, that can't be refuted by pointing out that they lean on sexism. The whole "It's Fantasy!" argument leans on sexism because if "It's Fantasy" then why aren't the male characters subjected to the same Fantasy? If it's Fantasy why is it applied exclusively to female characters? The answer is, of course, based in sexism.
-Rachel-
That was not the point I was trying to make. The point was, trying to make a "this isn't realistic" argument in this kind of discussion is pointless, because none of the armour in this game is realistic. All of it would get someone killed very quickly if worn in real life. You would be far better to concentrate on an argument that actually made sense, and not go off on tangents that can be easily countered and undermine your credibility. Making the argument that her armour is unrealistic is the same as saying that the sky is not yellow. While true, it has absolutely no bearing on this discussion whatsoever.
It's a symptom of society in general. They're not wrong in making this point, but I'm not sure this is the right thread for it. This already exists in game, removing shirt/pants isn't going to really show more skin than you can already show by using the cosmetic outfit option.
Pretty much what Ely, here, said. It's just one example in a larger sea of examples. Just because there are other examples doesn't make this one any more acceptable.
And I dunno if it's the right thread for it, either, Ely. But when someone wants "More Eye Candy" on top of the eye candy they've already got it really irks me. I don't like looking at the eye candy that's already out here in the game. The idea of wading through even more of it is frustrating.
-Rachel-
Great Weapon Fighter tanks? Who are you kidding? Cleric tanks. They draw -all- the aggro.
Exactly. I'm surprised this thread has continued this argument for over a day now. This is a video game. Apparently, everything is sexual here, though. Rachel, you've spent a ton of your time fighting over some pixelated midriff. It's a fantasy video game. Let me repeat, a fantasy video game. You're acting like this is some sort of life or death of the female gender. You argue that a few pixels of skin showing in a video game character is a hugely sexist offense. how is this even an argument?
That's what it comes down to really. Some people take videogames way to seriously, and equate a fantasy setting with the real world, and tend to carry their own real baggage into the virtual. You can see this on the previous page with the absolutely ridiculous armour example that was given.
That was not the point I was trying to make. The point was, trying to make a "this isn't realistic" argument in this kind of discussion is pointless, because none of the armour in this game is realistic. All of it would get someone killed very quickly if worn in real life. You would be far better to concentrate on an argument that actually made sense, and not go off on tangents that can be easily countered and undermine your credibility. Making the argument that her armour is unrealistic is the same as saying that the sky is not yellow. While true, it has absolutely no bearing on this discussion whatsoever.
I'm fine with the armor being unrealistic, is the thing. I just want it to be equally unrealistic. And Power Fantasy and Sexual Fantasy are not equal.
Give the female characters that male character's armor and I'd be happy as a clam. Giving them holes in their armor to show off skin for the purpose of showing off skin and I get annoyed. Push for -more- of that annoyance and I get upset.
-Rachel-
Great Weapon Fighter tanks? Who are you kidding? Cleric tanks. They draw -all- the aggro.
0
alopexiaMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian Users, Neverwinter Knight of the Feywild UsersPosts: 16
edited May 2013
The flaw in your logic is that you "assume" sexy is somehow degrading. You also don't realize that for evolutionary reasons males and females both have different mate selection strategies, so having these "power" fantasies for females is equivalent to "sexual" fantasies for males. You do not need to have naked men to make it "equal", all you need is the strong/tall/muscular/heroic men and it right away becomes equivalent to girls in chainmail bikinis.
Once again, if you actually act or dress in a feminine manner in real life, how is it any different from having feminine looking armor, that complements female form in...and I repeat...fictional world with completely different laws of physics and realism to our own?
In my opinion you are the one setting females back, but you are welcome to your own opinion, just don't hide behind this righteousness act you are trying so hard to play.
That's what it comes down to really. Some people take videogames way to seriously, and equate a fantasy setting with the real world, and tend to carry their own real baggage into the virtual. You can see this on the previous page with the absolutely ridiculous armour example that was given.
Yeah... That's another straw man. I'm not conflating real life with a game. I'm pointing out the sexist depictions of characters within the game. Male characters are shown as a Power Fantasy wearing armor that is hugely heavy and defensive. Women, though? Cleavage in Plate Armor.
-Rachel-
Great Weapon Fighter tanks? Who are you kidding? Cleric tanks. They draw -all- the aggro.
Pretty much what Ely, here, said. It's just one example in a larger sea of examples. Just because there are other examples doesn't make this one any more acceptable.
And I dunno if it's the right thread for it, either, Ely. But when someone wants "More Eye Candy" on top of the eye candy they've already got it really irks me. I don't like looking at the eye candy that's already out here in the game. The idea of wading through even more of it is frustrating.
-Rachel-
The way I see it is it's potentially less eye candy as at least they'd be wearing the armor instead of just going around in their loincloths :P
This is an ad-hominem strawman argument that relies on Hyperbole. You're depicting Lady Dwarf as a raging feminist stereotype and attempting to beat her down on the basis of being that raging feminist stereotype.
The Rule of Cool is an important rule to follow. I just wish the rule of cool applied equally to both sexes. Rather than "Sexy" being cool for women while "Strong" is cool for men.
The whole problem with your argument about "Real Life" and "A Product" is that the product exists in real life, not in a vacuum. If your argument were to be taken to it's logical extension there'd be no argument against sexism in advertising, movies, books, and the like. Media -surrounds- us, Finis. Just because it doesn't poke you in the eye doesn't mean it doesn't poke the woman next to you in the eye. Trying to say it's okay because it's one limited example of the overarching sexism in the media is like excusing one "Product Failure" that ends in someone injured while there are thousands of other identical "Product Failures" going on around it.
-Rachel-
If you read the thread closely, I think you'll find there's plenty of ad-hominem to go around.
Right, the "SWERVE! Poster irked by sexism is actually horribly sexist" reply. Thanks.
I knew I was forgetting one.
This thread is about something relatively simple to implement. THe simple ability to display shirt and pants or not, at the player's desire. This switch already exists in the game for helmets and neck pieces. (Which are able to be turned off for aesthetic purposes, but apparently you're okay with showing off a girl's unrealistic and impractical hairstyle, just not the tops of her <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> or her belly button. Let me explain to you how impractical long hair is in sword fighting.)
Implementing this switch would take very little in the way of development resources. It's not asking for new art, new models, new textures, or a redesign of the aestetic of the game from the ground up.
What you are asking for would.
Which is fine. But in the mean time, can we have some way to get rid of the ugly pants and shirt without giving up stats?
The flaw in your logic is that you "assume" sexy is somehow degrading. You also don't realize that for evolutionary reasons males and females both have different mate selection strategies, so having these "power" fantasies for females is equivalent to "sexual" fantasies for males. You do not need to have naked men to make it "equal", all you need is the strong/tall/muscular/heroic men and it right away becomes equivalent to girls in chainmail bikinis.
Once again, if you actually act or dress in a feminine manner in real life, how is it any different from having feminine looking armor, that complements female form in...and I repeat...fictional world with completely different laws of physics and realism to our own?
In my opinion you are the one setting females back, but you are welcome to your own opinion, just don't hide behind this righteousness act you are trying so hard to play.
Sexy isn't degrading, and I never assumed it was. I stated that it isn't equal, repeatedly. And I totally understand how biological mate selection is different between males and females. That doesn't mean the female character should be made into a sexual fantasy while the male character isn't represented in that way. It does not become equivalent at all, because of the intent behind the character designs. The males are designed to be powerful, not sexual. Hence why in boxers they look like Ken Dolls. Why is one side presented as a Power Fantasy and the other as a Sexual Fantasy? There is no reason the Sexual Fantasy should even be entertained as opposed to simply making both male and female characters into Power Fantasies. What does it matter that guys select mates in a specific way? Why does that determine how female characters look?
How is it different? Because a Character has no will to dress themselves. They are a doll that is played with that represents what people -think- of when they think of a woman. A woman has the ability to decide if she wants to wear jeans or plate armor or a sun dress or a miniskirt, tube top, and pumps. This character model doesn't. In that way they are completely different things. If a female player chose to alter the sliders of the character to better represent their idealized version of femininity and dressed it how they think a woman should dress that's fine. I keep saying that but no one seems to care to listen.
And no. I'm not holding women back at all, Alopexia. I'm pointing out sexism. But thanks for another Ad-Hominem attack.
-Rachel-
Great Weapon Fighter tanks? Who are you kidding? Cleric tanks. They draw -all- the aggro.
This thread is about something relatively simple to implement. THe simple ability to display shirt and pants or not, at the player's desire. This switch already exists in the game for helmets and neck pieces. (Which are able to be turned off for aesthetic purposes, but apparently you're okay with showing off a girl's unrealistic and impractical hairstyle, just not the tops of her <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> or her belly button. Let me explain to you how impractical long hair is in sword fighting.)
Implementing this switch would take very little in the way of development resources. It's not asking for new art, new models, new textures, or a redesign of the aestetic of the game from the ground up.
What you are asking for would.
Which is fine. But in the mean time, can we have some way to get rid of the ugly pants and shirt without giving up stats?
I'm not asking for a full model redesign. I've stated that it would be -far- too much work for -far- too little gain.
I'm arguing against the removal of the underarmor because of the guys in this thread who have quite literally been asking for "More Eye Candy" and "More Skin". It's specifically catering to men to show off more skin of female characters. I think there's more than enough examples of the game catering to male sexual fantasy.
If any change were to arise out of this thread I would hope it, instead, be the closing up of armor gaps on female characters so that we don't -need- the ugly chainmail underneath to fill in the holes.
-Rachel-
Great Weapon Fighter tanks? Who are you kidding? Cleric tanks. They draw -all- the aggro.
So there is a way to reskin armor, in effect offing the opportunity to have almost any look you like. Ah, wait I see what I did there and I should fix I tin eth interest of accuracy. The offer is for almost any look that is available.
And that’s where this vein of feminism is getting its sparks. The armor available isn’t acceptable and even if there is some armor out there that gives you the look you like, you had to look longer and harder for it than a male would have because your sensibilities are out of synch with the current male dominated patriarchal worldview driving game design.
I feel like Steampunky and Ladydwarf are expressing entirely legitimate and useful views but the idea that it can so easily be solved is quite clearly not so. Just look at this thread. Perhaps the argument could be made that if only the people here were more enlightened then the change you want could occur. But that is a little like wishing the wild horses would stand still long enough to ride one.
You are both bringing a macro problem into a micro environment. That is the reason no one can debate you on it. If I were to try to take you on with perhaps Sartre’s commentary on agency and objectification and the role of choice and freedom in the palm of tyranny it would be a wild divergence from the thread. As it is you two aren’t really fighting fair, not put too fine a point on it but c’mon, look around.
And if you are trying to be true to your stated positions then honesty isn’t enough. You also have to bring some amount of persuasion and charm. Steampunky and Ladydwarf are fielding these posts like Jedi warriors on the stormtrooper recruit firing range. They really have their arguments in shape, but I don’t think one can hope to win this with brute force or cold rationalism. Perhaps it seems that’s too much to ask but just scroll up to see how it’s going otherwise.
Even with hundreds of comedians out of work, consider a joke, some contextual smile, something disarming. Perhaps in this case muffins would be stronger than karate. Don’t feel singled out though, everyone has to do that, the birds do it, the bees do it, even educated fleas do it.
0
alopexiaMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian Users, Neverwinter Knight of the Feywild UsersPosts: 16
edited May 2013
You are missing the point that power and sexual fantasies are equivalent. Because of the sexual selection, one is more important for women and the other is more important for men. It is a very limited view, that has been way overdone by feminist propaganda, that somehow making women sexy is worse than making men strong. Both have a reason for existing that has been established for billions of years. Females would rather see strong men, while males would rather see feminine women. Sure, maybe it would make you feel better if guys would be running around naked, but that actually, won't somehow eliminate the different preferences that exist.
I do not see you arguing for weak and skinny male characters, I also do not see you asking for "ugly" looking characters. You focus on something that is very stereotypical, yet you point out how everyone else is just following stereotypes.
You ain't lying, Norn. Though I will take you to task on one point.
I'm fighting against this change. I'm not trying to get a model redesign or the entire game restructured to be more egalitarian. I'm only arguing that further sexualizing the female characters would be bad.
-Rachel-
Great Weapon Fighter tanks? Who are you kidding? Cleric tanks. They draw -all- the aggro.
0
sephereMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited May 2013
You did kind of hyjack the thread, though
It was originally about the undergarments and making a new feature to disable visuals
Not about the armor designs
I'm not asking for a full model redesign. I've stated that it would be -far- too much work for -far- too little gain.
I'm arguing against the removal of the underarmor because of the guys in this thread who have quite literally been asking for "More Eye Candy" and "More Skin". It's specifically catering to men to show off more skin of female characters. I think there's more than enough examples of the game catering to male sexual fantasy.
If any change were to arise out of this thread I would hope it, instead, be the closing up of armor gaps on female characters so that we don't -need- the ugly chainmail underneath to fill in the holes.
-Rachel-
So your answer is "No, I don't want you to be able to choose how your character looks, because I can't choose how my character looks."
You are missing the point that power and sexual fantasies are equivalent. Because of the sexual selection, one is more important for women and the other is more important for men. It is a very limited view, that has been way overdone by feminist propaganda, that somehow making women sexy is worse than making men strong. Both have a reason for existing that has been established for billions of years. Females would rather see strong men, while males would rather see feminine women. Sure, maybe it would make you feel better if guys would be running around naked, but that actually, won't somehow eliminate the different preferences that exist.
I do not see you arguing for weak and skinny male characters, I also do not see you asking for "ugly" looking characters. You focus on something that is very stereotypical, yet you point out how everyone else is just following stereotypes.
No. They are not equivalent. Power Fantasies have nothing to do with sex. Sexual Fantasies are -entirely- about sex with any other consideration being secondary.
So your answer is "No, I don't want you to be able to choose how your character looks, because I can't choose how my character looks."
Am I correct?
No. I'm saying "No. I don't want you to be able to make your character into more of a depiction of sexism in the media that I then have to look at as I play the game."
I'm arguing against the sexism getting -worse- than it already is.
-Rachel-
Great Weapon Fighter tanks? Who are you kidding? Cleric tanks. They draw -all- the aggro.
0
alopexiaMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian Users, Neverwinter Knight of the Feywild UsersPosts: 16
edited May 2013
The are equivalent in evolutionary sense, they both exist because of sexual selection, they are both there to help with mate selection, so scientifically and biologically, yes, they are equivalent.
You're trying to depict Power and Strength as Male Traits while Sexiness is a Female Trait. And biologically and genetically you may be right to some measure or another based on primal mating instincts and natural selection.
A female power fantasy, however, has nothing to do with sex. Nor does a male power fantasy. It has to do with -feeling- powerful.
A sexual fantasy, whether male or female, has to do with feeling sexy or experiencing something they find sexy.
-Rachel-
Great Weapon Fighter tanks? Who are you kidding? Cleric tanks. They draw -all- the aggro.
No. I'm saying "No. I don't want you to be able to make your character into more of a depiction of sexism in the media that I then have to look at as I play the game."
I'm arguing against the sexism getting -worse- than it already is.
-Rachel-
So you missed my suggestion in my first post where I asked if it would be okay if it were visible only to me?
I've played in a game before (though for the life of me, I can't remember which one, or the name of it, sorry) where all of your aesthetic options were visible only to you, the player. All of your armor displayed fully to other players (largely because of pvp, and it being important to tell who was what in battle).
Would that be alright? Or would it still bother you I was making my half-elf cleric sexier for my personal viewing pleasure? (Because I won't lie, that's the reason. This game is my leisure activity. I find half naked half-elf women pleasing to look at.)
I (honestly) don't want to offend anyone by it, but I want my character to look the way I want her too.
No. They are not equivalent. Power Fantasies have nothing to do with sex. Sexual Fantasies are -entirely- about sex with any other consideration being secondary.
You're trying to depict Power and Strength as Male Traits while Sexiness is a Female Trait. And biologically and genetically you may be right to some measure or another based on primal mating instincts and natural selection.
A female power fantasy, however, has nothing to do with sex. Nor does a male power fantasy. It has to do with -feeling- powerful.
A sexual fantasy, whether male or female, has to do with feeling sexy or experiencing something they find sexy.
-Rachel-
Are you actually trying to make the claim that feeling "powerful" isn't feeling "sexy" for a male?
0
alopexiaMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian Users, Neverwinter Knight of the Feywild UsersPosts: 16
edited May 2013
All the social norms are there because of biology, natural and sexual selections are what drives social behavior. Power fantasy, when comes to powerful men, is based on a female desire for a strong offspring and reliable mate. People who are "powerful" in our society are regarded as prime mates, so power fantasy is actually rooted in sexual fantasy.
So you missed my suggestion in my first post where I asked if it would be okay if it were visible only to me?
I've played in a game before (though for the life of me, I can't remember which one, or the name of it, sorry) where all of your aesthetic options were visible only to you, the player. All of your armor displayed fully to other players (largely because of pvp, and it being important to tell who was what in battle).
Would that be alright? Or would it still bother you I was making my half-elf cleric sexier for my personal viewing pleasure? (Because I won't lie, that's the reason. This game is my leisure activity. I find half naked half-elf women pleasing to look at.)
I (honestly) don't want to offend anyone by it, but I want my character to look the way I want her too.
That? Not at all. Because it wouldn't affect my play experience. You'd be running around in whatever outfit you want and I wouldn't be subjected to it.
Hmm, isn't being equally powerful (different genders have the same stats) while still looking smooth-skinned and beautiful enough of a power fantasy?
Playing the game -is- a power fantasy, yep. I really enjoy that. I don't like being subjected to other people's sexual fantasies, however, almost invariably in the form of holes in women's armor or female NPCs wearing next to nothing. I don't think it's right to put Sexual Fantasy into a game about Power Fantasy unless you do it equally. And it -really- isn't done in an equal manner at all.
-Rachel-
Great Weapon Fighter tanks? Who are you kidding? Cleric tanks. They draw -all- the aggro.
0
ladydwarfMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian Users, SilverstarsPosts: 0Arc User
I like how you think you are so righteous and everyone else has "predictable" answers. Same can be said about you two - stereotypical arguments and very limited views on feminism and sexism. Nothing new I heard from either of you.
And I assume you both dress like men in real life? Because wouldn't wearing a dress in your world be sexist?
If you'd been annoyed by ten years of a persistent and in-your-face trend in a hobby you otherwise enjoy, and every time you tried to discuss it in forums meant for discussion, you got the same sort of dismissive responses and mockery illustrated here (including this oh-so-lovely response of yours), I bet you'd find it all pretty predictable too. Heavens forbid we talk about it like respectful human beings in relevant threads without the "STFU and GTFO" mentality or leaping to conclusions that equality somehow means "every character wears a potato sack".
Of course, if attitudes are copped in our direction, we can't cop attitudes back, since then we're even more the oppressive holier-than-thou villains in this scenario, right? :rolleyes:
Equally predictable is the point in the conversation where I give up and shake my head, which I believe I've reached. You're free to carry on speculating how I dress in real life, since jeebus knows that has immense bearing on the subject.
All the social norms are there because of biology, natural and sexual selections are what drives social behavior. Power fantasy, when comes to powerful men, is based on a female desire for a strong offspring and reliable mate. People who are "powerful" in our society are regarded as prime mates, so power fantasy is actually rooted in sexual fantasy.
*Edit for spelling mistakes
You're confusing causation for correlation. Being a powerful spellcaster has nothing to do with being a strong mate. Being a powerful healer has nothing to do with being a strong mate. Those are examples of Power Fantasy as well.
Again, you're trying to excuse sexism through biology. It's still a False Equivalence.
And Kharnis: If feeling Powerful makes you feel Sexy: Go for it. But I highly doubt Calvin thought of himself as Sexy when he fantasized about fighting aliens in the place of his schoolteachers.
-Rachel-
Great Weapon Fighter tanks? Who are you kidding? Cleric tanks. They draw -all- the aggro.
That? Not at all. Because it wouldn't affect my play experience. You'd be running around in whatever outfit you want and I wouldn't be subjected to it.
-Rachel-
If you'd been annoyed by ten years of a persistent and in-your-face trend in a hobby you otherwise enjoy, and every time you tried to discuss it in forums meant for discussion, you got the same sort of dismissive responses and mockery illustrated here (including this oh-so-lovely response of yours), I bet you'd find it all pretty predictable too. Heavens forbid we talk about it like respectful human beings in relevant threads without the "STFU and GTFO" mentality or leaping to conclusions that equality somehow means "every character wears a potato sack".
Of course, if attitudes are copped in our direction, we can't cop attitudes back, since then we're even more the oppressive holier-than-thou villains in this scenario, right? :rolleyes:
Equally predictable is the point in the conversation where I give up and shake my head, which I believe I've reached. You're free to carry on speculating how I dress in real life, since jeebus knows that has immense bearing on the subject.
I'll be following her on out of here. I've made my points, I've rebutted every repeated "Hole Poking" attempt. I even came to agree with someone on an equitable solution in the form of a "Only I can see" hiding ability.
Ya'll enjoy yourselves.
-Rachel-
Great Weapon Fighter tanks? Who are you kidding? Cleric tanks. They draw -all- the aggro.
Comments
This is an ad-hominem strawman argument that relies on Hyperbole. You're depicting Lady Dwarf as a raging feminist stereotype and attempting to beat her down on the basis of being that raging feminist stereotype.
The Rule of Cool is an important rule to follow. I just wish the rule of cool applied equally to both sexes. Rather than "Sexy" being cool for women while "Strong" is cool for men.
The whole problem with your argument about "Real Life" and "A Product" is that the product exists in real life, not in a vacuum. If your argument were to be taken to it's logical extension there'd be no argument against sexism in advertising, movies, books, and the like. Media -surrounds- us, Finis. Just because it doesn't poke you in the eye doesn't mean it doesn't poke the woman next to you in the eye. Trying to say it's okay because it's one limited example of the overarching sexism in the media is like excusing one "Product Failure" that ends in someone injured while there are thousands of other identical "Product Failures" going on around it.
-Rachel-
That was not the point I was trying to make. The point was, trying to make a "this isn't realistic" argument in this kind of discussion is pointless, because none of the armour in this game is realistic. All of it would get someone killed very quickly if worn in real life. You would be far better to concentrate on an argument that actually made sense, and not go off on tangents that can be easily countered and undermine your credibility. Making the argument that her armour is unrealistic is the same as saying that the sky is not yellow. While true, it has absolutely no bearing on this discussion whatsoever.
Pretty much what Ely, here, said. It's just one example in a larger sea of examples. Just because there are other examples doesn't make this one any more acceptable.
And I dunno if it's the right thread for it, either, Ely. But when someone wants "More Eye Candy" on top of the eye candy they've already got it really irks me. I don't like looking at the eye candy that's already out here in the game. The idea of wading through even more of it is frustrating.
-Rachel-
That's what it comes down to really. Some people take videogames way to seriously, and equate a fantasy setting with the real world, and tend to carry their own real baggage into the virtual. You can see this on the previous page with the absolutely ridiculous armour example that was given.
I'm fine with the armor being unrealistic, is the thing. I just want it to be equally unrealistic. And Power Fantasy and Sexual Fantasy are not equal.
Give the female characters that male character's armor and I'd be happy as a clam. Giving them holes in their armor to show off skin for the purpose of showing off skin and I get annoyed. Push for -more- of that annoyance and I get upset.
-Rachel-
Once again, if you actually act or dress in a feminine manner in real life, how is it any different from having feminine looking armor, that complements female form in...and I repeat...fictional world with completely different laws of physics and realism to our own?
In my opinion you are the one setting females back, but you are welcome to your own opinion, just don't hide behind this righteousness act you are trying so hard to play.
Yeah... That's another straw man. I'm not conflating real life with a game. I'm pointing out the sexist depictions of characters within the game. Male characters are shown as a Power Fantasy wearing armor that is hugely heavy and defensive. Women, though? Cleavage in Plate Armor.
-Rachel-
The way I see it is it's potentially less eye candy as at least they'd be wearing the armor instead of just going around in their loincloths :P
If you read the thread closely, I think you'll find there's plenty of ad-hominem to go around.
This thread is about something relatively simple to implement. THe simple ability to display shirt and pants or not, at the player's desire. This switch already exists in the game for helmets and neck pieces. (Which are able to be turned off for aesthetic purposes, but apparently you're okay with showing off a girl's unrealistic and impractical hairstyle, just not the tops of her <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> or her belly button. Let me explain to you how impractical long hair is in sword fighting.)
Implementing this switch would take very little in the way of development resources. It's not asking for new art, new models, new textures, or a redesign of the aestetic of the game from the ground up.
What you are asking for would.
Which is fine. But in the mean time, can we have some way to get rid of the ugly pants and shirt without giving up stats?
Sexy isn't degrading, and I never assumed it was. I stated that it isn't equal, repeatedly. And I totally understand how biological mate selection is different between males and females. That doesn't mean the female character should be made into a sexual fantasy while the male character isn't represented in that way. It does not become equivalent at all, because of the intent behind the character designs. The males are designed to be powerful, not sexual. Hence why in boxers they look like Ken Dolls. Why is one side presented as a Power Fantasy and the other as a Sexual Fantasy? There is no reason the Sexual Fantasy should even be entertained as opposed to simply making both male and female characters into Power Fantasies. What does it matter that guys select mates in a specific way? Why does that determine how female characters look?
How is it different? Because a Character has no will to dress themselves. They are a doll that is played with that represents what people -think- of when they think of a woman. A woman has the ability to decide if she wants to wear jeans or plate armor or a sun dress or a miniskirt, tube top, and pumps. This character model doesn't. In that way they are completely different things. If a female player chose to alter the sliders of the character to better represent their idealized version of femininity and dressed it how they think a woman should dress that's fine. I keep saying that but no one seems to care to listen.
And no. I'm not holding women back at all, Alopexia. I'm pointing out sexism. But thanks for another Ad-Hominem attack.
-Rachel-
I'm not asking for a full model redesign. I've stated that it would be -far- too much work for -far- too little gain.
I'm arguing against the removal of the underarmor because of the guys in this thread who have quite literally been asking for "More Eye Candy" and "More Skin". It's specifically catering to men to show off more skin of female characters. I think there's more than enough examples of the game catering to male sexual fantasy.
If any change were to arise out of this thread I would hope it, instead, be the closing up of armor gaps on female characters so that we don't -need- the ugly chainmail underneath to fill in the holes.
-Rachel-
And that’s where this vein of feminism is getting its sparks. The armor available isn’t acceptable and even if there is some armor out there that gives you the look you like, you had to look longer and harder for it than a male would have because your sensibilities are out of synch with the current male dominated patriarchal worldview driving game design.
I feel like Steampunky and Ladydwarf are expressing entirely legitimate and useful views but the idea that it can so easily be solved is quite clearly not so. Just look at this thread. Perhaps the argument could be made that if only the people here were more enlightened then the change you want could occur. But that is a little like wishing the wild horses would stand still long enough to ride one.
You are both bringing a macro problem into a micro environment. That is the reason no one can debate you on it. If I were to try to take you on with perhaps Sartre’s commentary on agency and objectification and the role of choice and freedom in the palm of tyranny it would be a wild divergence from the thread. As it is you two aren’t really fighting fair, not put too fine a point on it but c’mon, look around.
And if you are trying to be true to your stated positions then honesty isn’t enough. You also have to bring some amount of persuasion and charm. Steampunky and Ladydwarf are fielding these posts like Jedi warriors on the stormtrooper recruit firing range. They really have their arguments in shape, but I don’t think one can hope to win this with brute force or cold rationalism. Perhaps it seems that’s too much to ask but just scroll up to see how it’s going otherwise.
Even with hundreds of comedians out of work, consider a joke, some contextual smile, something disarming. Perhaps in this case muffins would be stronger than karate. Don’t feel singled out though, everyone has to do that, the birds do it, the bees do it, even educated fleas do it.
I do not see you arguing for weak and skinny male characters, I also do not see you asking for "ugly" looking characters. You focus on something that is very stereotypical, yet you point out how everyone else is just following stereotypes.
I'm fighting against this change. I'm not trying to get a model redesign or the entire game restructured to be more egalitarian. I'm only arguing that further sexualizing the female characters would be bad.
-Rachel-
It was originally about the undergarments and making a new feature to disable visuals
Not about the armor designs
So your answer is "No, I don't want you to be able to choose how your character looks, because I can't choose how my character looks."
Am I correct?
No. They are not equivalent. Power Fantasies have nothing to do with sex. Sexual Fantasies are -entirely- about sex with any other consideration being secondary.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PowerFantasy
-Rachel-
No. I'm saying "No. I don't want you to be able to make your character into more of a depiction of sexism in the media that I then have to look at as I play the game."
I'm arguing against the sexism getting -worse- than it already is.
-Rachel-
You're trying to depict Power and Strength as Male Traits while Sexiness is a Female Trait. And biologically and genetically you may be right to some measure or another based on primal mating instincts and natural selection.
A female power fantasy, however, has nothing to do with sex. Nor does a male power fantasy. It has to do with -feeling- powerful.
A sexual fantasy, whether male or female, has to do with feeling sexy or experiencing something they find sexy.
-Rachel-
So you missed my suggestion in my first post where I asked if it would be okay if it were visible only to me?
I've played in a game before (though for the life of me, I can't remember which one, or the name of it, sorry) where all of your aesthetic options were visible only to you, the player. All of your armor displayed fully to other players (largely because of pvp, and it being important to tell who was what in battle).
Would that be alright? Or would it still bother you I was making my half-elf cleric sexier for my personal viewing pleasure? (Because I won't lie, that's the reason. This game is my leisure activity. I find half naked half-elf women pleasing to look at.)
I (honestly) don't want to offend anyone by it, but I want my character to look the way I want her too.
Hmm, isn't being equally powerful (different genders have the same stats) while still looking smooth-skinned and beautiful enough of a power fantasy?
Are you actually trying to make the claim that feeling "powerful" isn't feeling "sexy" for a male?
*Edit for spelling mistakes
That? Not at all. Because it wouldn't affect my play experience. You'd be running around in whatever outfit you want and I wouldn't be subjected to it.
Playing the game -is- a power fantasy, yep. I really enjoy that. I don't like being subjected to other people's sexual fantasies, however, almost invariably in the form of holes in women's armor or female NPCs wearing next to nothing. I don't think it's right to put Sexual Fantasy into a game about Power Fantasy unless you do it equally. And it -really- isn't done in an equal manner at all.
-Rachel-
If you'd been annoyed by ten years of a persistent and in-your-face trend in a hobby you otherwise enjoy, and every time you tried to discuss it in forums meant for discussion, you got the same sort of dismissive responses and mockery illustrated here (including this oh-so-lovely response of yours), I bet you'd find it all pretty predictable too. Heavens forbid we talk about it like respectful human beings in relevant threads without the "STFU and GTFO" mentality or leaping to conclusions that equality somehow means "every character wears a potato sack".
Of course, if attitudes are copped in our direction, we can't cop attitudes back, since then we're even more the oppressive holier-than-thou villains in this scenario, right? :rolleyes:
Equally predictable is the point in the conversation where I give up and shake my head, which I believe I've reached. You're free to carry on speculating how I dress in real life, since jeebus knows that has immense bearing on the subject.
You're confusing causation for correlation. Being a powerful spellcaster has nothing to do with being a strong mate. Being a powerful healer has nothing to do with being a strong mate. Those are examples of Power Fantasy as well.
Again, you're trying to excuse sexism through biology. It's still a False Equivalence.
And Kharnis: If feeling Powerful makes you feel Sexy: Go for it. But I highly doubt Calvin thought of himself as Sexy when he fantasized about fighting aliens in the place of his schoolteachers.
-Rachel-
Tada, a solution to make both camps happy.
Get on it devs
I'll be following her on out of here. I've made my points, I've rebutted every repeated "Hole Poking" attempt. I even came to agree with someone on an equitable solution in the form of a "Only I can see" hiding ability.
Ya'll enjoy yourselves.
-Rachel-