People ignoring the outright revolutionary, socially progressive, stereotype breaking foundation of Star Trek, focusing on how "sexist" it is that people that are visiting a tropical pleasure planet are dressed for pleasure and tropical weather.
Seriously.
If a digital bikini *honestly* upsets you, then you need to really look at your life objectively and decide what's really important.
I'd want to go on a longer tirade about how naive and ignorant some of the posters in this thread are, but it's not really relevant and wouldn't accomplish anything.
what really upsets me is that the open uniforms have been available for two years almost, yet Cryptic is entirely too lazy to go back and fix the skins accordingly. None of the custom skin options go down passed the neck with the exception of the trill spot. It seriously makes any option look terrible, not to mention that the hands have never had the custom skins either. Cryptic stopped caring with champions, but it looks like the same thing has been slowly happening here as well with how much is broken or out of date and how little they care to fix of improve any of it.
People ignoring the outright revolutionary, socially progressive, stereotype breaking foundation of Star Trek, focusing on how "sexist" it is that people that are visiting a tropical pleasure planet are dressed for pleasure and tropical weather.
Uhura broke a sterotype because she was a lead female character who was also black. This could not have been said if they had put her in a bikini or otherwise "dressed her down" One of the reasons why audiences took objection to her character in the 60s.
The same can be said about Janeway or any other lead female character.
If a digital bikini *honestly* upsets you, then you need to really look at your life objectively and decide what's really important.
If you want to say that, you can use it on the flipside as well for the people that bemoan the lack of said digital bikini. This flame argument works both ways.
Uhura broke a sterotype because she was a lead female character who was also black. This could not have been said if they had put her in a bikini or otherwise "dressed her down" One of the reasons why audiences took objection to her character in the 60s.
The same can be said about Janeway or any other lead female character.
Sulu (Asian), Checkov (Russian), Picard (age) and Sisko (single father) also fall under the "breaking stereotypes" category, but you conveniently left them out, as if feminism is the only issue Star Trek has tackled.
For the sake of harmony, and so we don't have to close this thread, please keep your comments on-topic.
Which is to say, feel free to discuss your satisfaction or lack thereof about costumes, particularly the Risa event costumes.
Discussions about sexuality, stereotyping, suitability for mission wear, and the thermal comfort of Starfleet uniforms may well be interesting topics, but they are not THIS topic.
If your topic is interesting enough to be a new thread and is not intended to start an argument, please feel free to start one. (A New Topic, I mean...)
Also, please stop the arguments and in-fighting. They will not be tolerated.
Heh. I see where this is going: If you don't agree with me and/or critique my opinions (emphasis on opinions), it's a flame. I'm out.
Again you can apply this statement to your own argument.
If you're not actually going to read what I write and then actually post a reply to it that doesn't address my comments. Then it ceases to be an actual discussion.
Provide a logical argument and not just excuses as to why it should be that way and I'll debate it; in another thread if necessary.
Getting back on topic, I never saw any heralding of the new costumes (officially anyway), I thought they were glossed over with talk of the corvette etc.
ITT: Puritan wants to espouse the ground breaking things Trek has done, all while wanting to force everyone to follow their ideals for clothing.
Trek is about being open minded, and accepting that folks are different.. with different cultural beliefs.
I'd hate to think how you'd handle going to Betazed. Or, any of the potentially hundreds of other worlds out there, where nudity and/or skimpy clothing (especially at a beach!) is the norm. For that matter, perhaps you should stay away from any of the hundreds of nude beaches on Earth, to say nothing of the ones that allow toplessness.
We're on a beach planet, at the beach. If we want to participate in the dance contest wearing a bikini, a pair of shorts and a hawaiian shirt, and something besides boots... we should be able to. It's quite disappointing that Cryptic has made the decision to hold a beach event, without beach attire.
I don't care whether people are TRIBBLE, straight, yellow, blue or inside out it doesn't need to have these additions in order to make the game sell and it's only there for one purpose.
Just because something has already happened doesn't mean it should continue to happen nor should it be "equaled" out. Making men or women sexual objects is wrong.
for the love of god, people like you are worse than trolls on the net.
its RISA a paradise for free sexual desires and unafraid to be "natural".
incase you hadn't realised there are two flaws maybe even 3 with your arguement and constant moaning.
1) its a game
2) Its part of a universe that is fictional and existed long before the game was in alpha stages.
3) First instinct of human nature, survival, men and women will always be sexual objects to some degree because that's how it works in the evolutionary scheme of things, if you cant comprehend this and refuse to accept the fact its normal and a part of "survival" then stop playing this game, build a ship leave the planet and go clone yourself.
seriously people like you have no baring on reality you want a utopia that will never exist because our instincts as a race are always going to be dominant and its only wrong if its done so with force not choice. If someone becomes a sexual object by choice there is nothing wrong with that, If someone is a sexual object due to perceptions then there is nothing wrong with that either as it is merely an opinion nothing more.
who are you to tell someone they are wrong, is your opinion absolute?
If someone finds someone else attractive do they see them as a sexual object or do they see them as another human being? If its "another human being" and not " a sexual object"
then how is it (he or she) attractive? can you comprehend this now? its normal get over it.
It might make you think about whether or not you really need to objectify women so badly in this game that requires you needing to be able to wear a "swimsuit" everywhere like the skin bleached Orion girls we see haunting Drozana.
So, you think that women should be denied of even the OPTION to dress in a bikini if they want, because you're worried about them being objectified by others? Really?
So, should women not be able to show cleavage or skirts? Should we go back to Victorian style corsets and bell dresses? Or how about only being able to wear burqas, perhaps? (not bashing women who choose to wear them, but we're talking about not even giving women the option.)
Just because a woman wants to own a bikini doesn't mean she wants to objectify herself.
Believe it or not, it is possible to look at a woman in a swimsuit and NOT objectify her.
And if other people objectify her for it, that's not her issue. That's someone else's weird little problem.
One moment you are talking about "Breast Bounce Physics", sliders for "nipple pertness" and armies of bikini clad commandos then in the same breath you are talking about how you don't objectify women. Hypocrisy much?
Don't tell me what I think. I have never once in this thread espoused Victorian values on sexuality. I take umbrage at the very suggestion of the things above being put into this game in the same way that I might object to a hard core TRIBBLE magazine being put into a library. It has no place there.
Taking it to the extreme in a literal "all or nothing" campaign isn't constructive dialogue.
At least the guy that suggested the idea that he wanted his bikini commandos was honest about it, use all the logical fallacies that you want but you aren't fooling me.
I have asked all of you that continue to post to DEFINE what sexual objectification is, not what you think it is or think it should be. But what it is defined as by academics, feminists or not and come back to me. Since none of you have done that, it speaks volumes.
You want to take it to ridiculous extremes, fine. Come back to me and make that point when the majority of women involved in prostitution are there because they feel it is a vocation for them and not because they are addicted to drugs and owned by pimps who force them to be there. When women and men aren't herded across continental borders like cattle to be sold into the sex trade. When sex without consent is unheard of.
Where young girls and growing numbers of boys don't starve themselves to look like the models they see on television and having plastic surgery at 18 to make them look right.
These are all consequences of the continual obsession with sex that are unnatural and society needs to take a long hard look at itself in order to remove these blights upon the world.
When I landed at the summer event and saw all the NPC's in bathing suits and bikinis I though, finally they are going to give us a bathing suit option for the Federation side but what do we get..... shorts or a marginally different shirt and pants set......
DISAPPOINTED!........
Well I probably would have been disappointed by the drab outfits but for one fact that made it all worthwhile for me. Apparently for Caitians the shorts allows you to see their foot paws which is a new option we never got before so yay.:D
You want to take it to ridiculous extremes, fine. Come back to me and make that point when the majority of women involved in prostitution are there because they feel it is a vocation for them and not because they are addicted to drugs and owned by pimps who force them to be there. When women and men aren't herded across continental borders like cattle to be sold into the sex trade. When sex without consent is unheard of.
Where young girls and growing numbers of boys don't starve themselves to look like the models they see on television and having plastic surgery at 18 to make them look right.
These are all consequences of the continual obsession with sex that are unnatural and society needs to take a long hard look at itself in order to remove these blights upon the world.
... and so we can once and for all wipe all those things from our culture, we need to take a stand, and ban the bikini, since that is so obviously the cause of all of those blights on our society. If we just didn't look at any skin belonging to the opposite sex at all, everything would be alright ...
:quadruple-facepalm:
How are we supposed to take you anti-swimwear crusaders at all seriously like this? You're acting like a bunch of rabid animals foaming at the mouth blaming all of society's ills on visible amounts of skin!
It isn't the skin that is the problem. It is our individual perceptions of it.
The vast majority of my family are nudists. There is nothing objectifying about showing skin. It all has to do with our own individual attitudes towards the other gender (or even our own gender) that is what objectification is all about, and skin or no skin, isn't going to change that.
Jeez, people... get a grip... Star Trek was supposed to be about a more evolved and enlightened time, where we grew past all of this petty BS, and see things how they actually are. This whole slew of bickering, railing about objectification over swimwear is just rediculous.
GROW UP PEOPLE.
You anti-bikini/objectification people are a lot closer to anti-women cultures than you are willing to admit to. People making their own choices for themselves, is what matters. Especially if it isn't a choice you would make for yourself.
... and so we can once and for all wipe all those things from our culture, we need to take a stand, and ban the bikini, since that is so obviously the cause of all of those blights on our society. If we just didn't look at any skin belonging to the opposite sex at all, everything would be alright ...
I didn't say that, tell me where I wrote that. Oh wait you can't, no one in this thread can do simple things like that. False dichotomy.
How are we supposed to take you anti-swimwear crusaders at all seriously like this? You're acting like a bunch of rabid animals foaming at the mouth blaming all of society's ills on visible amounts of skin!
It isn't the skin that is the problem. It is our individual perceptions of it.
Seriously, you write that as a reply to what I wrote? I'll just repost it for you to read at our leisure. I understand these things take time to sink in.
One moment you are talking about "Breast Bounce Physics", sliders for "nipple pertness" and armies of bikini clad commandos then in the same breath you are talking about how you don't objectify women.
This perception is appropriate is it? We should actually even consider these things as proper at all in any setting, game, reality or anything.
The swimwear is not the problem in this case, never has been. It's been the attitude that many male players of this game feel entitled to dress up their characters and ogle them as they would people on the beach.
I didn't say that, tell me where I wrote that. Oh wait you can't, no one in this thread can do simple things like that. False dichotomy.
Seriously, you write that as a reply to what I wrote? I'll just repost it for you to read at our leisure. I understand these things take time to sink in.
This perception is appropriate is it? We should actually even consider these things as proper at all in any setting, game, reality or anything.
The swimwear is not the problem in this case, never has been. It's been the attitude that many male players of this game feel entitled to dress up their characters and ogle them as they would people on the beach.
So I take it that you make your characters horrible to look at? I mean, who in their right mind would roll a character to look like their idea hero/heroine?
The problem is--still--that you want to enforce your own very subjective idea of beauty (read: covered up) on the rest of us, under the guise of progressive feminism and anti-objectification rhetoric.
I maintain that progress should only ever add to rights and privileges--not take from them. If you want to play overalls online, there are options out there for you. Heck, even if they allowed bikinis in this game, you'd still have the option to cover up your own characters as you see fit.
Since you don't want to share, stay out of my sandbox and I'll stay out of yours.
So I take it that you make your characters horrible to look at? I mean, who in their right mind would roll a character to look like their idea hero/heroine?
In actual fact, I have been told that my toons are some of the most horrible things to look at. You should see my Alien KDF Tactical officer.
The problem is--still--that you want to enforce your own very subjective idea of beauty (read: covered up) on the rest of us, under the guise of progressive feminism and anti-objectification rhetoric.
STRAW MAN ARGUMENT!
No I'm not. I'm trying to get you all to stop going "OMG TRIBBLE!" like school boys. Since you seem to have a failing in understanding more verbose statements. Because that's what the vast majority of you are doing. It's even been said in this thread!
I maintain that progress should only ever add to rights and privileges--not take from them. If you want to play overalls online, there are options out there for you. Heck, even if they allowed bikinis in this game, you'd still have the option to cover up your own characters as you see fit.
By reducing women to the status of sex objects you take from their rights and privileges. You don't add to them.
You mock me about overalls online but you (plural) want bikinis and bouncing TRIBBLE online. Hypocrites.
Is it just me, or is the Uniform drop down menu greyed out for everyone else's non-Uniform-only costume slots too?
stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9 My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
It's a metaphor for staying out of other peoples' business. In this case, it's a call for you to stop telling people how to play and enjoy their game their way. If you don't want to see skin, great. Avert your eyes, but don't advocate for taking away that option for others (it doesn't do anyone any good).
It's a metaphor for staying out of other peoples' business. In this case, it's a call for you to stop telling people how to play and enjoy their game their way. If you don't want to see skin, great. Avert your eyes, but don't advocate for taking away that option for others (it doesn't do anyone any good).
It's not a metaphor. You're telling me to get lost and that's out of order.
It's not an option. It was never there. You can't lose something if it was never there to start with.
You're on a crusade against what you think I represent, but you don't even understand or are being deliberately obtuse.
I don't care about skin. The characters can go around naked for all I care. I want the attitude that somehow you (plural) are entitled to have full frontal nudity in a game because you paid for it and then you can go around on forums like this and go "OMG 5318008" like school children.
I'm sorry to be so blunt about it, but you don't seem to understand.
It's not a metaphor. You're telling me to get lost and that's out of order.
It's not an option. It was never there. You can't lose something if it was never there to start with.
You're on a crusade against what you think I represent, but you don't even understand or are being deliberately obtuse.
I don't care about skin. The characters can go around naked for all I care. I want the attitude that somehow you (plural) are entitled to have full frontal nudity in a game because you paid for it and then you can go around on forums like this and go "OMG 5318008" like school children.
I'm sorry to be so blunt about it, but you don't seem to understand.
I really hope the irony of your comments wasn't lost on you...
In case it was, would you mind pointing me to the part where we (plural) were asking for full frontal nudity? What's that? The community wasn't asking for full frontal nudity?
Now you can go back and re-read the entire thread, and find all the other incidental threads that I've posted similar stuff in.
When you do that, come back and talk to me but not before.
So you're not denying that you're (plural) all about a special type of navel gazing then, so I take this to be a tacit admission.
I don't take orders or directions from you. Nor do I need your permission to engage in the discussion on my terms. You'll either agree with what I say or not. I've not told you want to do, only made suggestions. I suggest that if you're interested in friendly discourse, you do the same.
It's a logical fallacy to assume that silence (in this case boredom) is consent. In fact, I challenged you to find and cite an example where the community has called for full frontal nudity--the claim which you made and have the burden of proof to support. The fact that you did not raises questions--especially if, as you claim, there are a litany of examples in the thread and your post history.
I don't take orders or directions from you. Nor do I need your permission to engage in the discussion on my terms. You'll either agree with what I say or not. I've not told you want to do, only made suggestions. I suggest that if you're interested in friendly discourse, you do the same.
You did tell me what to do. You told me to leave or do you not remember that? There has been a litany of that in this thread alone from you and people like you.
I "recommended" you to go and look up, for yourself the stuff that you are claiming doesn't exist. When it in fact does you just haven't been bothered to find it.
It's a logical fallacy to assume that silence (in this case boredom) is consent. In fact, I challenged you to find and cite an example where the community has called for full frontal nudity--the claim which you made and have the burden of proof to support. The fact that you did not raises questions--especially if, as you claim, there are a litany of examples in the thread and your post history.
So it is now my job to ensure your ability to read this thread? Something which you've not been able to do as so far you managed to accuse me of saying things that not only have I not said, but have often said the direct opposite of.
I challenge you to find and cite the examples of which you tell me how much I hate swimsuits and am against them in principle.
Even if I did go through the whole forum and meticulously post everything that you so asked for, you would no doubt continue to ignore it.
In one such example, having put forward my thesis about how things in the game are objectification and provided examples. I asked the community as a whole to provide examples of the hard and fast definition of objectification was and demonstrate how I was wrong.
All I was given on this request was logical fallacies, opinion as well as a bunch of flames and a lot of hubris.
You answer my question and I'll answer yours. Or is that too much to ask?
You did tell me what to do. You told me to leave or do you not remember that? There has been a litany of that in this thread alone from you and people like you.
I "recommended" you to go and look up, for yourself the stuff that you are claiming doesn't exist. When it in fact does you just haven't been bothered to find it.
So it is now my job to ensure your ability to read this thread? Something which you've not been able to do as so far you managed to accuse me of saying things that not only have I not said, but have often said the direct opposite of.
I challenge you to find and cite the examples of which you tell me how much I hate swimsuits and am against them in principle.
Even if I did go through the whole forum and meticulously post everything that you so asked for, you would no doubt continue to ignore it.
In one such example, having put forward my thesis about how things in the game are objectification and provided examples. I asked the community as a whole to provide examples of the hard and fast definition of objectification was and demonstrate how I was wrong.
All I was given on this request was logical fallacies, opinion as well as a bunch of flames and a lot of hubris.
You answer my question and I'll answer yours. Or is that too much to ask?
Seeing as you're only here for the ad homenim, yes it is too much to ask. It seems you've already "lost" the argument anyway. That being the case, I'll grab my handful of popcorn shrimp and peace out before you're encouraged to take a full step over the line.
So I ask you to actually read my posts and that constitutes an Ad Hominem argument?
You clearly don't understand what that means and have no interest in the discussion at all. You've used several actual logical fallacies already so you can't have "won" but if you need validation you can have it.
I only stay at Risa long enough to do the mission for the free ship, seems like others not going there as much as the winter event either. I think its because of the bad clothing options given here. Its not only about swimsuits and clothing options for females. The more stuff like Hawaiian shirts for both sexes, more variety of beach shorts, tank tops. Instead there are 2 almost identical boring overpriced clothes that make you look like a shipwreck survivor, they are too expensive compared to the winter event clothes also.
I only stay at Risa long enough to do the mission for the free ship, seems like others not going there as much as the winter event either. I think its because of the bad clothing options given here. Its not only about swimsuits and clothing options for females. The more stuff like Hawaiian shirts for both sexes, more variety of beach shorts, tank tops. Instead there are 2 almost identical boring overpriced clothes that make you look like a shipwreck survivor, they are too expensive compared to the winter event clothes also.
Hawaiian shirts would really have added some colour, like with Tom Paris and Harry Kim in that episode of Voyager.
If memory serves the clothes items are similarly priced, but the variety was actually less in winter as you essentially had the same three jackets just in different colours, which was really extortion if you think about it.
It's not a metaphor. You're telling me to get lost and that's out of order.
It's not an option. It was never there. You can't lose something if it was never there to start with.
You're on a crusade against what you think I represent, but you don't even understand or are being deliberately obtuse.
I don't care about skin. The characters can go around naked for all I care. I want the attitude that somehow you (plural) are entitled to have full frontal nudity in a game because you paid for it and then you can go around on forums like this and go "OMG 5318008" like school children.
I'm sorry to be so blunt about it, but you don't seem to understand.
Please, show me where I requested full frontal nudity, or boobies.
The bulk of the requests in this thread, have been for clothing appropriate for the location. In this case,the location is a beach, and bikinis, shorts, Hawaiian shirts, etc... Are all appropriate for that location,
You are the one taking legitimate concerns about the lack of appropriate attire, and trying to turn it into some weird crusade that has...zero to do with the game, or even Star Trek. Then, you deliberately take a "you mind your business, I'll mind mine" comment as people telling you to leave, almost as if you're trying to find something to argue about.
Beaches = beachwear, it's really that simple. You see very few people wearing winter parkas on he beach, midsummer. Cryptic should have included the option.
Comments
People ignoring the outright revolutionary, socially progressive, stereotype breaking foundation of Star Trek, focusing on how "sexist" it is that people that are visiting a tropical pleasure planet are dressed for pleasure and tropical weather.
Seriously.
If a digital bikini *honestly* upsets you, then you need to really look at your life objectively and decide what's really important.
I'd want to go on a longer tirade about how naive and ignorant some of the posters in this thread are, but it's not really relevant and wouldn't accomplish anything.
Uhura broke a sterotype because she was a lead female character who was also black. This could not have been said if they had put her in a bikini or otherwise "dressed her down" One of the reasons why audiences took objection to her character in the 60s.
The same can be said about Janeway or any other lead female character.
If you want to say that, you can use it on the flipside as well for the people that bemoan the lack of said digital bikini. This flame argument works both ways.
That's a flame, and doesn't add to the discussion in any way. Except to make your position weaker through the ad hominem.
Sulu (Asian), Checkov (Russian), Picard (age) and Sisko (single father) also fall under the "breaking stereotypes" category, but you conveniently left them out, as if feminism is the only issue Star Trek has tackled.
"Rose-colored blinders" indeed.
I think a reminder is seriously needed here.
Not really, I saw your post, before you changed it. (You badly misspelled Uhura as O'Hara) Picked the example that was relevant and put it forward.
No it's not the only issue it's tackled. But it was a big one at the time in the 1960s, when only men could serve in the Navy at all.
Again you can apply this statement to your own argument.
If you're not actually going to read what I write and then actually post a reply to it that doesn't address my comments. Then it ceases to be an actual discussion.
Provide a logical argument and not just excuses as to why it should be that way and I'll debate it; in another thread if necessary.
Getting back on topic, I never saw any heralding of the new costumes (officially anyway), I thought they were glossed over with talk of the corvette etc.
Trek is about being open minded, and accepting that folks are different.. with different cultural beliefs.
I'd hate to think how you'd handle going to Betazed. Or, any of the potentially hundreds of other worlds out there, where nudity and/or skimpy clothing (especially at a beach!) is the norm. For that matter, perhaps you should stay away from any of the hundreds of nude beaches on Earth, to say nothing of the ones that allow toplessness.
We're on a beach planet, at the beach. If we want to participate in the dance contest wearing a bikini, a pair of shorts and a hawaiian shirt, and something besides boots... we should be able to. It's quite disappointing that Cryptic has made the decision to hold a beach event, without beach attire.
for the love of god, people like you are worse than trolls on the net.
its RISA a paradise for free sexual desires and unafraid to be "natural".
incase you hadn't realised there are two flaws maybe even 3 with your arguement and constant moaning.
1) its a game
2) Its part of a universe that is fictional and existed long before the game was in alpha stages.
3) First instinct of human nature, survival, men and women will always be sexual objects to some degree because that's how it works in the evolutionary scheme of things, if you cant comprehend this and refuse to accept the fact its normal and a part of "survival" then stop playing this game, build a ship leave the planet and go clone yourself.
seriously people like you have no baring on reality you want a utopia that will never exist because our instincts as a race are always going to be dominant and its only wrong if its done so with force not choice. If someone becomes a sexual object by choice there is nothing wrong with that, If someone is a sexual object due to perceptions then there is nothing wrong with that either as it is merely an opinion nothing more.
who are you to tell someone they are wrong, is your opinion absolute?
If someone finds someone else attractive do they see them as a sexual object or do they see them as another human being? If its "another human being" and not " a sexual object"
then how is it (he or she) attractive? can you comprehend this now? its normal get over it.
jheez.
Actually, it is. Legacy code and swimming animations from Champions Online exist in Star Trek Online's engine, but Cryptic hasn't implemented it.
So, you think that women should be denied of even the OPTION to dress in a bikini if they want, because you're worried about them being objectified by others? Really?
So, should women not be able to show cleavage or skirts? Should we go back to Victorian style corsets and bell dresses? Or how about only being able to wear burqas, perhaps? (not bashing women who choose to wear them, but we're talking about not even giving women the option.)
Just because a woman wants to own a bikini doesn't mean she wants to objectify herself.
Believe it or not, it is possible to look at a woman in a swimsuit and NOT objectify her.
And if other people objectify her for it, that's not her issue. That's someone else's weird little problem.
One moment you are talking about "Breast Bounce Physics", sliders for "nipple pertness" and armies of bikini clad commandos then in the same breath you are talking about how you don't objectify women. Hypocrisy much?
Don't tell me what I think. I have never once in this thread espoused Victorian values on sexuality. I take umbrage at the very suggestion of the things above being put into this game in the same way that I might object to a hard core TRIBBLE magazine being put into a library. It has no place there.
Taking it to the extreme in a literal "all or nothing" campaign isn't constructive dialogue.
At least the guy that suggested the idea that he wanted his bikini commandos was honest about it, use all the logical fallacies that you want but you aren't fooling me.
I have asked all of you that continue to post to DEFINE what sexual objectification is, not what you think it is or think it should be. But what it is defined as by academics, feminists or not and come back to me. Since none of you have done that, it speaks volumes.
You want to take it to ridiculous extremes, fine. Come back to me and make that point when the majority of women involved in prostitution are there because they feel it is a vocation for them and not because they are addicted to drugs and owned by pimps who force them to be there. When women and men aren't herded across continental borders like cattle to be sold into the sex trade. When sex without consent is unheard of.
Where young girls and growing numbers of boys don't starve themselves to look like the models they see on television and having plastic surgery at 18 to make them look right.
These are all consequences of the continual obsession with sex that are unnatural and society needs to take a long hard look at itself in order to remove these blights upon the world.
Pfft, the coding for me to do it right now isn't there which is what I said.
Well I probably would have been disappointed by the drab outfits but for one fact that made it all worthwhile for me. Apparently for Caitians the shorts allows you to see their foot paws which is a new option we never got before so yay.:D
:quadruple-facepalm:
How are we supposed to take you anti-swimwear crusaders at all seriously like this? You're acting like a bunch of rabid animals foaming at the mouth blaming all of society's ills on visible amounts of skin!
It isn't the skin that is the problem. It is our individual perceptions of it.
The vast majority of my family are nudists. There is nothing objectifying about showing skin. It all has to do with our own individual attitudes towards the other gender (or even our own gender) that is what objectification is all about, and skin or no skin, isn't going to change that.
Jeez, people... get a grip... Star Trek was supposed to be about a more evolved and enlightened time, where we grew past all of this petty BS, and see things how they actually are. This whole slew of bickering, railing about objectification over swimwear is just rediculous.
GROW UP PEOPLE.
You anti-bikini/objectification people are a lot closer to anti-women cultures than you are willing to admit to. People making their own choices for themselves, is what matters. Especially if it isn't a choice you would make for yourself.
-- Smoov
I didn't say that, tell me where I wrote that. Oh wait you can't, no one in this thread can do simple things like that. False dichotomy.
Seriously, you write that as a reply to what I wrote? I'll just repost it for you to read at our leisure. I understand these things take time to sink in.
This perception is appropriate is it? We should actually even consider these things as proper at all in any setting, game, reality or anything.
The swimwear is not the problem in this case, never has been. It's been the attitude that many male players of this game feel entitled to dress up their characters and ogle them as they would people on the beach.
So I take it that you make your characters horrible to look at? I mean, who in their right mind would roll a character to look like their idea hero/heroine?
The problem is--still--that you want to enforce your own very subjective idea of beauty (read: covered up) on the rest of us, under the guise of progressive feminism and anti-objectification rhetoric.
I maintain that progress should only ever add to rights and privileges--not take from them. If you want to play overalls online, there are options out there for you. Heck, even if they allowed bikinis in this game, you'd still have the option to cover up your own characters as you see fit.
Since you don't want to share, stay out of my sandbox and I'll stay out of yours.
In actual fact, I have been told that my toons are some of the most horrible things to look at. You should see my Alien KDF Tactical officer.
STRAW MAN ARGUMENT!
No I'm not. I'm trying to get you all to stop going "OMG TRIBBLE!" like school boys. Since you seem to have a failing in understanding more verbose statements. Because that's what the vast majority of you are doing. It's even been said in this thread!
By reducing women to the status of sex objects you take from their rights and privileges. You don't add to them.
You mock me about overalls online but you (plural) want bikinis and bouncing TRIBBLE online. Hypocrites.
OK. But I was here first so....
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
It's a metaphor for staying out of other peoples' business. In this case, it's a call for you to stop telling people how to play and enjoy their game their way. If you don't want to see skin, great. Avert your eyes, but don't advocate for taking away that option for others (it doesn't do anyone any good).
It's not an option. It was never there. You can't lose something if it was never there to start with.
You're on a crusade against what you think I represent, but you don't even understand or are being deliberately obtuse.
I don't care about skin. The characters can go around naked for all I care. I want the attitude that somehow you (plural) are entitled to have full frontal nudity in a game because you paid for it and then you can go around on forums like this and go "OMG 5318008" like school children.
I'm sorry to be so blunt about it, but you don't seem to understand.
I really hope the irony of your comments wasn't lost on you...
In case it was, would you mind pointing me to the part where we (plural) were asking for full frontal nudity? What's that? The community wasn't asking for full frontal nudity?
:rolleyes:
Now you can go back and re-read the entire thread, and find all the other incidental threads that I've posted similar stuff in.
When you do that, come back and talk to me but not before.
So I take this to be a tacit admission of the school children statement.
I don't take orders or directions from you. Nor do I need your permission to engage in the discussion on my terms. You'll either agree with what I say or not. I've not told you want to do, only made suggestions. I suggest that if you're interested in friendly discourse, you do the same.
It's a logical fallacy to assume that silence (in this case boredom) is consent. In fact, I challenged you to find and cite an example where the community has called for full frontal nudity--the claim which you made and have the burden of proof to support. The fact that you did not raises questions--especially if, as you claim, there are a litany of examples in the thread and your post history.
You did tell me what to do. You told me to leave or do you not remember that? There has been a litany of that in this thread alone from you and people like you.
I "recommended" you to go and look up, for yourself the stuff that you are claiming doesn't exist. When it in fact does you just haven't been bothered to find it.
So it is now my job to ensure your ability to read this thread? Something which you've not been able to do as so far you managed to accuse me of saying things that not only have I not said, but have often said the direct opposite of.
I challenge you to find and cite the examples of which you tell me how much I hate swimsuits and am against them in principle.
Even if I did go through the whole forum and meticulously post everything that you so asked for, you would no doubt continue to ignore it.
In one such example, having put forward my thesis about how things in the game are objectification and provided examples. I asked the community as a whole to provide examples of the hard and fast definition of objectification was and demonstrate how I was wrong.
All I was given on this request was logical fallacies, opinion as well as a bunch of flames and a lot of hubris.
You answer my question and I'll answer yours. Or is that too much to ask?
Seeing as you're only here for the ad homenim, yes it is too much to ask. It seems you've already "lost" the argument anyway. That being the case, I'll grab my handful of popcorn shrimp and peace out before you're encouraged to take a full step over the line.
You clearly don't understand what that means and have no interest in the discussion at all. You've used several actual logical fallacies already so you can't have "won" but if you need validation you can have it.
Enjoy your popcorn shrimp.
Hawaiian shirts would really have added some colour, like with Tom Paris and Harry Kim in that episode of Voyager.
If memory serves the clothes items are similarly priced, but the variety was actually less in winter as you essentially had the same three jackets just in different colours, which was really extortion if you think about it.
Please, show me where I requested full frontal nudity, or boobies.
The bulk of the requests in this thread, have been for clothing appropriate for the location. In this case,the location is a beach, and bikinis, shorts, Hawaiian shirts, etc... Are all appropriate for that location,
You are the one taking legitimate concerns about the lack of appropriate attire, and trying to turn it into some weird crusade that has...zero to do with the game, or even Star Trek. Then, you deliberately take a "you mind your business, I'll mind mine" comment as people telling you to leave, almost as if you're trying to find something to argue about.
Beaches = beachwear, it's really that simple. You see very few people wearing winter parkas on he beach, midsummer. Cryptic should have included the option.