Please tell me it isn't just me..

[Carah]

I understand where your coming from. I roll my eyes when I check-out the images on the site, but it is an RPG game, and a good outlet for peoples fantasies. There's alot of healthy males out there, and it's nothing to take personally.

 

I'm guilty as charged, because of Roberts Male Body replacer there's alot of naked men in my game. ;)

 

P.S. I have to applaud you for bringing up this topic, because it can lead you open for harsh criticism. Very brave, indeed. :thumbsup:

[DeathsAdvocate]

I tend to not care too much about how other people mod their game. Do what you're gonna do. The only time the nudity and women as sex objects issues bug me is when I'm browsing through some screen shot collections and I click on a picture that sounds epic (insert cool title), and what I see is some skanky looking ho in some typical pose added with a bright sunset background over looking a lake. Yawn...if I want to whack off, I go to youporn for that.

 

Personally though, I have the nudity mods for both male and female (I'm a realism player), but I don't add any of the lame armor packs that give armor to females that doesn't really look like armor. I mean, thongs and bikinis giving more defense than full plate mail? ...give me a break. It's too cheesy for my taste.

 

Yes, I'm a guy, no, I haven't created a female character (that I've played through the game).

[SGTBOB]

lol

well i have to agree with the fact that skimpy outfits gives better protection

its rediculous

reminds me of cheesy kid cartoons where they can go into space without a helmet

and for some reason their head doesnt explode from the vacuum

[Zamboni]

lol

well i have to agree with the fact that skimpy outfits gives better protection

its rediculous

reminds me of cheesy kid cartoons where they can go into space without a helmet

and for some reason their head doesnt explode from the vacuum

Why would their heads explode in vacuum? Do you see daily news of people's head imploding when they dive more than 20 feet in the water? Because a few feet of water will exert more pressure differential than the one atmosphere difference between ground level and outer space.

 

The notion of "you would explode" in space is a myth popularized by main stream science fictions. If you were to expose an unprotected human to space, he would not explode and he would not freeze, at least not for a long while.

 

In fact, when exposed to vacuum, you would have roughly 30 seconds of useful consciousness. Your body would suffer little, if any, ill effects.

 

After that however, you will pass out due to lack of oxygen (faster than drowning because oxygen actually escapes from your bloodstream through the lungs) and die soon after. Assuming there are no harmful radiation (like sunlight) exposure, your body will keep at 37 degrees Celsius for quite a while but eventually drop down to below freezing after many, many hours.

 

Also, it's "ridiculous", not "rediculous". Ridiculous comes from the word "ridicule" meaning "to make fun of". It is not a word meaning "re-diculous" as if having to repeatedly "diculous".

[IndorilTheGreat]

Okay... Thanks for that interesting- but off topic- bit of information there Zamboni.

 

 

When I play Oblivion, I am a "realism" player, so I have both male and female bodies. However, I do not download these for gawking and masturbation. I use these because the original bodies were, well, too "fakey." I mean seriously, underwear in the midevel (sp?) era? Come on!

 

Also, in the Image Share section, I agree, there are several "porny" images. But then there is art. There's a difference: porno turns me on, and nude art doesn't. It's just representing the Human form.

 

I think pornography must involve some seduction, and art must not. There's a difference between real nude art, and so called "erotic art." More commonly known as Exhibitionism.

 

Thank you. That is all.

[GenghisKhanIT]

[...]

 

I think pornography must involve some seduction, and art must not. There's a difference between real nude art, and so called "erotic art." More commonly known as Exhibitionism.

 

Thank you. That is all.

 

I absolutely disagree. Many forms of art have made use of seductive images, and they still are unanimously considered art.

 

I will make only one example which should illustrate this well enough. Tiziano's Venus of Urbino (1538), being considered one of the Renaissance art masterpieces, is explicitelly sexy, even to our days, when we are quite accustomed to nude women. Imagine how much provoking it was 500 years ago.

[Zamboni]

[...]

 

I think pornography must involve some seduction, and art must not. There's a difference between real nude art, and so called "erotic art." More commonly known as Exhibitionism.

 

Thank you. That is all.

 

I absolutely disagree. Many forms of art have made use of seductive images, and they still are unanimously considered art.

 

I will make only one example which should illustrate this well enough. Tiziano's Venus of Urbino (1538), being considered one of the Renaissance art masterpieces, is explicitelly sexy, even to our days, when we are quite accustomed to nude women. Imagine how much provoking it was 500 years ago.

*bad French accent*

Ah oui... Zis is zee "Art of Seduction", non?

[IndorilTheGreat]

[...]

 

I think pornography must involve some seduction, and art must not. There's a difference between real nude art, and so called "erotic art." More commonly known as Exhibitionism.

 

Thank you. That is all.

 

I absolutely disagree. Many forms of art have made use of seductive images, and they still are unanimously considered art.

 

I will make only one example which should illustrate this well enough. Tiziano's Venus of Urbino (1538), being considered one of the Renaissance art masterpieces, is explicitelly sexy, even to our days, when we are quite accustomed to nude women. Imagine how much provoking it was 500 years ago.

 

Alright, fair enough. I understand that, but my point is that art should not be like those pictures you see in magazines and such.

 

Do you get my meaning? :unsure:

[SGTBOB]

Alright, fair enough. I understand that, but my point is that art should not be like those pictures you see in magazines and such.

thats what im saying i dont understand how anything that sexualy arouses you can be called "art" i mean real art makes you think puts moods into your head (or for propaganda

ideas lol)

i just dont know why everyones keeps calling erotic material art :confused:

[IndorilTheGreat]

Alright, fair enough. I understand that, but my point is that art should not be like those pictures you see in magazines and such.

thats what im saying i dont understand how anything that sexualy arouses you can be called "art" i mean real art makes you think puts moods into your head (or for propaganda

ideas lol)

i just dont know why everyones keeps calling erotic material art :confused:

 

Yes! Someone understands! :D

 

:thanks: