Are Female Armors Denigrating?

[DeadMansFist849]

"Political correctness" isn't even a thing except in the nightmares of some individuals. Also, you know who people are more worried about offending? Not women, not minorities and not the disabled for sure! They're worried about offending what they think is their core demographic, i.e. angry, snobbish white men.

 

I also really don't believe in chivalry. Don't lump me in with idiots like Hugo Schwyzer, please--I am not as much of a fool as he is, he thinks women are magical unicorn-whisperers, which is a load of rubbish. The poll didn't allow for me to make a nuanced point, which is that sexy and exaggerated stuff is fine if it's neither literally nor effectively the only option in terms of any gendered clothing mod.

[Aurielius]

This is getting seriously off-topic.

 

What is interesting is that according to the poll more men find female armours denigrating. I understand that there is probably more male voters in this poll but the difference is still significant.

 

I blame political correctness for that. Some of us guys are so afraid of being seen as chauvinists that they go out of their way to state that women are in fact superior to men.

 

I'm all for being courteous towards women (it's customary over here) but I don't think it's a good idea to take that PC thing too far.

 

I am not remotely politically correct in perception or opinion though would admit to being very 'old school' in my attitudes towards women, chivalry and honor. I grew up with the fashion world being that my mother was a fashion designer for women's clothes (Biba, Quant, Channel, Yves St Laurent). Most of what is produced is not 'fashion' and would be willing to bet if faced with the fashion choices of RPG's most women of taste in real life would take a pass if they had to actually have to buy and wear one of these outfits.

[McclaudEagle]

I don't particularly like revealing armor as it goes against its intended design. If you look at the female ACU of the U.S. Army, it's barely any different to the male version, with the only noticeable difference being the size. The Army doesn't care about how sexy she looks, they care about keeping her alive, which is the intended design of armor.

 

However, in terms of gaming, I don't really see a problem with it. Yes, I'd love modders to create more stuff for male characters, or at least less revealing stuff for female characters, but in the end, it's the modder's choice what they make, and we should be grateful they bother in the first place. Realistically speaking, most revealing armors in the game and mods would be useless against a real trained soldier. However, it's a game and as a result realism isn't the core focus.

[Sync182]

How does one discern that a woman 'looks' unintellectual? Is there a vacant caption floating over her head? :whistling:

 

Sign in her ear saying "Space For Rent". ;) Oh, sorry...that's the joke answer. :cool:

 

@areppon

Actually large red type face in Internet speak denotes anger, whether or not that was your intent I will not hazard a guess, but most people would make that interpretation.

 

I know I saw it that way.

 

--------------

 

ON-TOPIC...

 

Somehow, this thread was NOT a case of TL;DR for me...dunno why. That said, I will admit that I hadn't read every post before typing my reply. *shrugs*

 

Do I find female armours denigrating? No. Do I find the idea of a chainmail bikini on women sexy, in fantasy games? Hell, yes!

 

I'm a red-blooded male. I'll cheerily admit that. I'll probably have to apologise for it, too, but that's for a different thread.

 

Someone once said that the term MMORPG really means "Most Men Online Role Play Girls". It's probably true, too. When males play females, they tend to inject a certain level of desired sexiness into their female characters - whether behaviour or dress-(non)sense.

 

With that said, I'll also happily admit that, when I'm playing games, I like seeing a sexy female form, rather than a muscly male butt, running across my screen. Am I wrong for thinking/wanting that? I've already admitted I'm a red-blooded male, with approximately zero homosexual tendencies in me.

 

Are such skimpy armours completely impractical in a realistic sense? Totally! I'd fully expect any warrior worth the steel of his blade to aim for the fleshy parts of any woman clad in a chainmail bikini, and so should said woman (if she doesn't then I'd be wanting to know just what idiot let her join the army).

 

Would I be offended if someone one made mods that provided skimpy armour textures for males? Not at all. Would I use them? No (see above comment about my orientation and thoughts if you want to know why).

 

Plate armour: has to be form-fitting to a degree, so that it can offer the protection it does. It has to aborb impacts as much as the body encased in it doesn't want to bounce around too much from any impact. Therefore, plate armours normally follow the shape and form of the wearer - it's why plate armour generally tended to be custom-made. So if a set of plate armour has a large set of cups in the chest, it's probably because the wearer was a well-endowed female. No-one's fault, and the armour has to do its job.

 

I think that's enough crap from me for today. :whistling:

[Shantih]

If hypothetically speaking I were to use a mod that allows my muscular barbarian to be half naked and look like Conan would it be a reflection on my sexual identity?

 

In other words, is one's sexual orientation a factor or is it more a question of general aesthetic principles?

 

Moreover would a revealing armour be deemed more acceptable if it was more aesthetically pleasing and elaborate than the alternative?

[DeadMansFist849]

If hypothetically speaking I were to use a mod that allows my muscular barbarian to be half naked and look like Conan would it be a reflection on my sexual identity?

 

In other words, is one's sexual orientation a factor or is it more a question of general aesthetic principles?

 

Moreover would a revealing armour be deemed more acceptable if it was more aesthetically pleasing and elaborate than the alternative?

 

It doesn't actually reflect sexual orientation at all--nude does not always equal sexual. :P I'm assuming this is not meant for me, but like I said, it bugs me that there's a double standard. A woman could use all the naughty barbie mods she likes, admit it openly and be proud of it, and not be called various derogatory terms for lesbian. However, if a guy does the same thing, even making it abundantly clear that he's not remotely attracted to men, he'll get called absolutely all of the English anti-gay slurs. Obviously, nobody should have such terms levelled at them, but it's still disturbing that anybody who openly admits to using the male-focused (as in the character subtype, not the user) mods is far more likely to be insulted for doing it.

 

Basically, what's good for one is good for the other. On that topic though, yeah, I think attraction does play a part in using sexualised (not just nude or skimpy) mods. :) Sexualised would be deliberately emphasising the character's distracting parts, obviously, rather than "hey, there just happen to be no pants here".

[Shantih]

If hypothetically speaking I were to use a mod that allows my muscular barbarian to be half naked and look like Conan would it be a reflection on my sexual identity?

 

In other words, is one's sexual orientation a factor or is it more a question of general aesthetic principles?

 

Moreover would a revealing armour be deemed more acceptable if it was more aesthetically pleasing and elaborate than the alternative?

 

It doesn't actually reflect sexual orientation at all--nude does not always equal sexual. :P I'm assuming this is not meant for me, but like I said, it bugs me that there's a double standard. A woman could use all the naughty barbie mods she likes, admit it openly and be proud of it, and not be called various derogatory terms for lesbian. However, if a guy does the same thing, even making it abundantly clear that he's not remotely attracted to men, he'll get called absolutely all of the English anti-gay slurs. Obviously, nobody should have such terms levelled at them, but it's still disturbing that anybody who openly admits to using the male-focused (as in the character subtype, not the user) mods is far more likely to be insulted for doing it.

 

Basically, what's good for one is good for the other. On that topic though, yeah, I think attraction does play a part in using sexualised (not just nude or skimpy) mods. :) Sexualised would be deliberately emphasising the character's distracting parts, obviously, rather than "hey, there just happen to be no pants here".

 

It's an interesting perspective. I personally don't think sexual orientation plays an important part. It's more a question of the sort of looks we like for characters in our games. I had a great time playing a Dwarf in a loincloth in DAO and that had nothing to do with my sexual orientation. ;D

 

I'm straight and if I don't use some male modded outfits in Fallout 3/FNV it's not necessarily because they are revealing but because they look like S&M gear and I don't want my character to look like the Gimp from Pulp Fiction.

 

By the way prostitutes outfits in FNV are a very good example and I haven't thought about them before. As far as these outfits are concerned there is no difference in the skimpy factor and that is a good thing IMO as I dislike double standards as much as you do. Are these outfits denigrating? Probably so but they are meant to look awkward as they're only worn by prostitutes and they actually look like outfits that shady sex workers would wear (and that's in the unmodded game).

[Deleted472477User]

@areppon

Actually large red type face in Internet speak denotes anger, whether or not that was your intent I will not hazard a guess, but most people would make that interpretation. All that aside you are losing sight of the original premise which could be precisely done by stating your opinion in a clear straightforward manner. The usual result of semi angry retorts and counter retorts is yellow ink and thread lock ( I know because I have been as guilty as any of doing the same). I am not aware of any of the posters making the assertion that their view was the only correct one, since in the long run it's subjective interpretation of a visual medium and there is really no wrong way to be subjective since it's how one perceives something.

 

Well, in addition to the sarcasm detection fail (My comment "Oh teh noes..." sarcastic internet speak used with a purpose but it went over his/her head) and red text, I had trouble reading the unbroken wall of text. I suppose that makes me stupid, too.

 

Anyway, Aurelius, I am in agreement here, all snark aside. The thread is getting hostile and losing cohesion, and I won't contribute to that by answering the attacks made on my person for what I said. Granted, I do realize there were some actual typos. I was in a hurry and could have done better on the proofreading.

[Marxist ßastard]

http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2011/349/3/a/perennia_3_by_dazzerfong-d4j7sy0.png

Okay, since I don't have Skyrim I have to ask: Is that the in-game NPC model? Because it may just be the pose, but the upper legs look sort of weird. Like Gumby legs.

 

Does this bother no one else?

Edited December 28, 2011 by Marxist ßastard

[myrmaad]

I have the game and that looks nothing like anything I've seen ingame.