Guys who play girl characters

[Vagrant0]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

To some degree, yes. But there are several ingrained constants when we start talking about beauty and the female figure as an aesthetic choice.

 

Now I won't try and make any claims about how the many game companies have featured promotional art with barely clad women (or in the case of one Everquest expanion, a barely clad woman, in chains, with the box art being in relief) as being much more than a ply at enticing adolescent (and usually virgin) males.

 

But there is a reason why hundreds of paintings from the Renaissance and sculptures from before the fall of Rome which are of female subjects remain in high regard and are usually synonymous with beauty. Both men and women find the subtle curves and smooth lines of the feminine form generally more appealing both on the common level and on the artistic level. Art based around male subjects usually is less about the subject and more about the context of the situation, in many of these, the male figure is even obscured greatly by clothing, shadow, or merely the style of the art. More over, thematically, art featuring female subjects is usually an expression of joy or sorrow, while male subjects are usually those of peace, stoicism, or tragedy. While this applies mostly to Western art, the aesthetic qualities of the female form are ones which are are still represented in non-western art, and even before the West had any real contact with these cultures. In contrast, as art, the male form usually becomes quickly overshadowed by an emphasis on phallic shapes, if not becomes solely represented only by a phallus.

 

 

What sorts of pixel shapes people prefer to look at for long hours is just an extension of this. Usually the first ones to object about those cases where a female character is forced on them in a game (such as some MMOs with gendered classes or with gendered equipment) are the ones who are usually teenagers who are still trying to figure out who they are in real life and are afraid of the social repercussions for doing anything feminine. And that is totally understandable since they're still trying to define themselves socially and internally. And similarly, when they voice opposition to others using a character of the opposite gender, they are just reflecting the situation upon themselves and are reacting to their own objections. In short, they disapprove of others for the same reason that they disapprove of themselves, for the same reason why they think others disapprove of them. It's kinda like a circle, but all the arrows point in. In short, they're teenagers, so they're supposed to be self-centered.

 

 

As for the whole make-up thing... Very Brave Woman

Granted, wearing all that makeup probably isn't helping her skin condition much.

[HadToRegister]

When I stumble upon platin blonde silicon valley with botox dressing I want to reach for the nearest bucket. Same goes for all the artificial products of the so called beauty industry.

 

Same here, when I detect the slightest hint of "Fake Anything", I look away and don't look back.

That look (I'm talking about people like Pamela Anderson) just makes me :sick:

 

This is a great video that show just how much goes into turning a woman into a product, and how so much that is on TV and magazines is so fake,

and it's unfortunate that young girls in our society try to chase that, when it isn't even real.

 

 

This first video is showing how photoshopped these magazine covers and ads are, the second video is an awesome video, and it makes a HUGE Statement without saying a word,

because people are taught to chase after unobtainable false images of what the Media keeps presenting as "beauty"

 

[HadToRegister]

To some degree, yes. But there are several ingrained constants when we start talking about beauty and the female figure as an aesthetic choice.

 

But there is a reason why hundreds of paintings from the Renaissance and sculptures from before the fall of Rome which are of female subjects remain in high regard and are usually synonymous with beauty. Both men and women find the subtle curves and smooth lines of the feminine form generally more appealing both on the common level and on the artistic level. Art based around male subjects usually is less about the subject and more about the context of the situation, in many of these, the male figure is even obscured greatly by clothing, shadow, or merely the style of the art. More over, thematically, art featuring female subjects is usually an expression of joy or sorrow, while male subjects are usually those of peace, stoicism, or tragedy. While this applies mostly to Western art, the aesthetic qualities of the female form are ones which are are still represented in non-western art, and even before the West had any real contact with these cultures. In contrast, as art, the male form usually becomes quickly overshadowed by an emphasis on phallic shapes, if not becomes solely represented only by a phallus.

 

Ninja'd! We must've hit "Add Reply" at the same time. :biggrin:

 

You raise some really good points.

 

Which also reminds me, that while Beauty does lie in the eye of the beholder, there are also, Societal Expectations/Preferences of beauty during given time periods.

 

Painters such as Rubens 1577-1640 painted rather well-rounded, by today's standard "Chubby" women, and that's probably because that was 'in vogue" at the time.

People dying in Medieval times painting their faces with lead paint to a ghostly white because Ghostly-White must've been considered attractive at some point.

Look at the Roaring 20's in America with the "Flapper Girls", the Societal "Eye of the Beholder" at that time favored the "Straight as a board" no breasts, no waist, no hips,

androgynous look, and the dresses were designed to just hang on them so they looked like walking tongue depressors, it varies from generation to generation

[myrmaad]

I can totally relate to what Vagrant0 just posted, I can barely relate to what HadToRegister posted right after that, but first:

 

 

Worst of all, there is a faction of men who want us women to believe that wearing makeup is somehow cheating and we should be able to look beautiful without cosmetics etc. That is the most pathetic of all, if I feel like going without makeup that's my business and if I prefer to wear it that's also my business. It smacks of "the man trying to keep me down". Well applied makeup just flatters what we've already got, and we're not going to listen to detractors, but we will see them for the haters they really are.

 

 

I agree and disagree, depends.

You put on make for others to see. So it's not just your own business is it? I'm guess you don't just do it at home around mirrors.

I don't see beauty as something merely subjective. Our eyes are a way of sensing important information about one another and that info is not just in the eye of the beholder. It's like looking at a flower and being able to see if it is a healthy flower. Smelling it too (same with perfume).

I'm not anti makeup or anti-flattery using clothes and such. But when all that stuff is removed, I'm anti any surprises that were hidden, as if I was fooled.

 

You are exactly who I'm talking about. Yes it most certainly is only my business, and you have not any right whatsoever to a public opinion on *my choice* as a private individual in this matter. I guarantee I didn't put it on (or leave it off) for you. It's not unusual for women to be required to wear makeup for certain professional positions, especially where you serve in any PR capacity. Damned if we do, damned if we don't, you can stuff your opinion. I'm convinced the anti-makeup brigade is just another tool in the arsenal of misogyny, the war against pretty woman, whose power must be denied, subjugated, repudiated, controlled. She's a witch! Burn her!

 

 

@HadToRegister:

The white lead powder was a fad among the very wealthy, not a standard of beauty among the masses.

 

One of the enduring standards of beauty across all cultures is a certain hip to waist ratio, for example.

[abaris]

 

People dying in Medieval times painting their faces with lead paint to a ghostly white because Ghostly-White must've been considered attractive at some point.

 

 

It signified status. No need to work outside. Only poor people were tanned.

[HadToRegister]

I can totally relate to what Vagrant0 just posted, I can barely relate to what HadToRegister posted right after that, but first:

 

I've obviously not explained myself very well then... :confused:

[Vagrant0]

You raise some really good points.

 

Which also reminds me, that while Beauty does lie in the eye of the beholder, there are also, Societal Expectations/Preferences of beauty during given time periods.

 

Painters such as Rubens 1577-1640 painted rather well-rounded, by today's standard "Chubby" women, and that's probably because that was 'in vogue" at the time.

People dying in Medieval times painting their faces with lead paint to a ghostly white because Ghostly-White must've been considered attractive at some point.

Look at the Roaring 20's in America with the "Flapper Girls", the Societal "Eye of the Beholder" at that time favored the "Straight as a board" no breasts, no waist, no hips,

androgynous look, and the dresses were designed to just hang on them so they looked like walking tongue depressors, it varies from generation to generation

All of which are societal preferences, usually to try and establish oneself as being part of a higher society. Round and hearty stature was a mark of being of a higher class since most of the working class were starving or close to at the time. Similarly painting your face white and getting almost no sunlight were marks of a higher class since you could afford to not work (like long fingernails in the East). The 20s were different though since the style was more as an opposition to Victorian values. The androgynous look came about as a statement of liberation from an overly pious and restrained life that most women had. More noteworthy was the cutting of hair to a short style, which was practically unheard of before WWI and coincided with the start of women entering the workforce. Bobbed hair was a mark of independence, and the formless appearance helped emulate the qualities of the privileged class (men) (just like how shoulderpads were a mark of 80's fashion among women executive hopefuls, again on march toward breaking the glass ceiling).

[HadToRegister]

All of which are societal preferences, usually to try and establish oneself as being part of a higher society. Round and hearty stature was a mark of being of a higher class since most of the working class were starving or close to at the time. Similarly painting your face white and getting almost no sunlight were marks of a higher class since you could afford to not work (like long fingernails in the East). The 20s were different though since the style was more as an opposition to Victorian values. The androgynous look came about as a statement of liberation from an overly pious and restrained life that most women had. More noteworthy was the cutting of hair to a short style, which was practically unheard of before WWI and coincided with the start of women entering the workforce. Bobbed hair was a mark of independence, and the formless appearance helped emulate the qualities of the privileged class (men) (just like how shoulderpads were a mark of 80's fashion among women executive hopefuls, again on march toward breaking the glass ceiling).

 

Exactly, and those 'styles' quickly started to culturally define what 'beauty' was in each of those time periods as well.

 

I remember Spandex and Leg warmers and huge hair looking all kinds of "hot" in the 80's, and now, it looks silly.

[nosisab]

Well, trying to look "appealing" is far from a feminine prerogative and less yet a human prerogative, just look at most birds to be assured... and notice they don't get a little bit ashamed at trying to look bigger, colorful or otherwise potentiate whatever they have to show.

 

Human beings are not that different but with "aggravating" characteristics like social use and fashion.

 

Make up is not a lie, at most it can highlight features and, why not, hid some less desired other. Besides, there is no point in comparing make up with photoshopping and even so what is the real problem? well, I can admit if I was seeking for intimate relationship I could be frustrated and feel deceived if made the decision based on portraits, but even then I could not blame anyone else before myself for it.

 

Someone told once that in love and war everything is allowed, live with it or die complaining about the unfairness :)

 

PS in small letters: Sad is (s)he who is guided only by visual beauty.

Edited December 29, 2011 by nosisab

[Vagrant0]

Exactly, and those 'styles' quickly started to culturally define what 'beauty' was in each of those time periods as well.

 

I remember Spandex and Leg warmers and huge hair looking all kinds of "hot" in the 80's, and now, it looks silly.

The difference however is between those aspects which are culturally based and those which are innate and present across cultures. Everything you've mentioned for the last few posts has been something entirely culturally based.

 

As for birds... I would remind that for most species of birds (unless my biology teacher was smoking something), the males are XX and the females are XY, the opposite of human chromosomes. So there might even be a genetic factor related to overt displays intended to attract the other sex. Probably not much basis for this, just saying.