Remove Gender-Lock From Gear / Glamour Please

Because [arbitrary reason].

Women? Wearing pants!?

What do you think is this? 2021?

>:/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vickii

2) men wearing dresses is still taboo in Japan and China which is where most of this mog station stuff comes from.

---

Nah.

Dresses are not too much of a step away from traditional clothing. Comme des Garçons (A Japanese brand) have been selling street clothing, dresses for men, right back to the 2000's. Japanese music, especially Visual Kei has a lot of men in dresses....

And then there is LadyBaby! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8-vje-bq9c who was wearing loli dresses with his beard years ago.

Although I prefer −真天地開闢集団−ジグザグ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8eAWvNAUPs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MilkieTea

Oh jeez, I can't handle gender restrictions being unlocked! *gasp*... now female toons... would be able to wear pants? and male toons... dresses? *gag*, it's never been done before! In real life, women wear dresses and men wear pants! It's always been that way, bring back manly men, blah blah blah. /s

For real though - gender restrictions are LITERALLY meaningless and arbitrary when IRL we can wear whatever we want with the only restriction being whether or not it's too small to fit. I'm a transmasc dude. I wear dresses all the time IRL. Doesn't make me less of a man, doesn't RuIn aNyOnEs ImMeRsSiOn. OP has the right of it, let men wear dresses, let women wear pants. Removing gender restrictions harms NO ONE.

You're playing a high techno-fantasy game set in a fictional universe where catpeople and furry tony-the-tigers exist, and you're worried about men wearing dresses and women wearing pants?

---

IRL, defined gender roles have been skewed; not destroyed. If you think wearing a dress as a male does not make you less of a man, you have a skewed PoV as to what defines one. If you are confused or in opposition to that, I invite you to look up the word "masculinity". The best case scenario for a man wearing a dress thinking it doesn't make him less of a man is, "It doesn't help." because you will immediately be associated with femininity. Dresses, kind of have that effect. Just ask anyone who dreamed of being a Disney princess as a child if they were wanting to be a man.

Anywho, your post was at least entertaining. I mean in one clause you use real life as a reason to not have restrictions, yet in the next clause you use real life to remind people they are playing a video game. It's been some time since I've seen such a dismissive post and attitude, and that's saying something.

People pay real money to play this game, dude. Money that most of us have to work for. At jobs that during these days we are damn fortunate to have. The people who design this game and the gear also have real lives. They have families, bills, and other obligations and adult responsibilities. A lot of what they would like to do is sacrificed so players like you can come here and bemoan because some of the thoughts within the thread don't match your own.

If you want to use reality as a basis for your arguments, then at least try to be real.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gemina

If you think wearing a dress as a male does not make you less of a man, you have a skewed PoV as to what defines one.

---

The grammar is shocking, but it seems like you are espousing "Any man who wears a dress isn't masculine". Is that what you are saying?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LisSquid

I'd say the only races we have extensive backgrounds on are the Xaela of the Steppe and the Wildwood of Ishgard (which both have plenty of glamour in game to choose from).

---

We actually know a decent-ish amount about the Wildwood and Duskwight elezen of the Shroud as well, just by virtue of the fact that we know a decent-ish amount about Gelmorra.

(...and I will resist the urge to post the semi-irreverent write-up I just did of Gelmorran and Gridanian history, largely because I just realized it is Extremely Long by even my standards.)

I would, admittedly, dispute that the Ishgardian elezen should be properly called Wildwood elezen at all.

Gelmorra wasn't founded until sometime between 500 and 700 years into the Sixth Astral Era. (To my irritation, there are conflicting canon sources on this.) The art of conjury -- and thus the ability to speak with the elementals -- wasn't discovered until around 1050-ish or so, and it wasn't until they were able to hold peace talks with the elementals that the Gelmorrans were allowed to live in the Black Shroud once more.

The 'Wildwood' term specifically refers to the elezen who left Gelmorra to live on the surface again when the elementals allowed them that freedom, while 'Duskwight' refers to the elezen who remained behind in Gelmorra because they didn't trust the elementals who had spent the past thousand-ish years trying to wipe them out.

By definition, therefore, the Wildwood elezen didn't exist as a distinct clan of elezen until around 1050 6AE or later.

Meanwhile, we know the Dragonsong war had lasted about 1000 years. And we know that Ascian manipulation touched off the Dragonsong war about 200 years into Ishgardian history. Which means that Ishgard would have been founded around somewhere in the fourth century of the Sixth Astral Era (i.e., between about 300 and 372 6AE); most canon sources seem to put it around 300 6AE, so we'll go with that.

We do have solid reason to believe that the elezen who settled in Coerthas were fleeing the wrath of the elementals in the wake of the Sixth Umbral Calamity, so they should have common ancestry with the Wildwood elezen of the Shroud. However, strictly speaking, they have common ancestry with the Duskwight elezen, too, and the distinction between Duskwight and Wildwood didn't exist until some 700-ish years after Ishgard was founded.

(But of course, the devs weren't going to add a third elezen clan to the game... thus the Ishgardians are handled as Wildwood elezen.)

Which... admittedly is a bit of a fly in the ointment when it comes to the suggestion of clan-locked culturally-significant glamour gear; there's no distinction, codewise, between a Wildwood elezen from the Shroud and a "Wildwood" elezen from Coerthas, so you'd have no way to distinguish between the two for culturally-significant lore-appropriate outfits. You'd just have to let Wildwood elezen use both.

I just don't want them to become lazy with it like they have with hair. Since most hair everyone can wear all we've gotten is lame short boyish anime hair and no really long hair. So as long as clothes don't do what hair has done then fine. If it leads to boring designs like our hair then an extreme no thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gameovers

I just don't want them to become lazy with it like they have with hair. Since most hair everyone can wear all we've gotten is lame short boyish anime hair and no really long hair. So as long as clothes don't do what hair has done then fine. If it leads to boring designs like our hair then an extreme no thanks.

---

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's lame, people who prefer having short hair on their character should have options too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dogempire

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's lame, people who prefer having short hair on their character should have options too.

---

you're missing the point... there's a difference between having options and thats all you're getting. Here's a hint.. all we've been getting is boring short anime hair. I liked it better when we actually HAD options. I want them to NOT be lazy, they've been lazy with the hair. So what I'm saying is if it leads to them NOT being lazy then I'm all for it.

As someone who cross dresses their character, it is absolutely depressing the sheer lack of long (and short) skirts for men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gameovers

you're missing the point... there's a difference between having options and thats all you're getting. Here's a hint.. all we've been getting is boring short anime hair. I liked it better when we actually HAD options. I want them to NOT be lazy, they've been lazy with the hair. So what I'm saying is if it leads to them NOT being lazy then I'm all for it.

---

I mean I get what you're saying but the way I see it, they're probably going to lean away from adding more short hairstyles next expansion, and IMO before Shadowbringers there were only a handful of good looking short hairstyles, so I'm glad to see more options instead of most male characters only using the same few hairs.

But then again who knows, they can't even be bothered to fit the newest hat and hairs to Viera and Hrothgar heads so it's pretty reasonable to assume they're just being lazy

Signed by me. But if anything, I'm more concerned about items like Neo-Ishagrdian sets, Artifact sets, Nier sets and such. In case with a lot of Mog Station clothes - there is a chance of them lifting restrictions in future, because those are two separate sets with its own separate items. When it goes to Neo-Ishgardian/Artifact/Nier/etc, however.... they just alter depending on gender without being two different sets. That's what I don't like the most. I have a friend who would prefer male Fending Neo-Ishagradian set, but she only plays female characters. I have items I like more on "female version" more, as well. And the way these items are, the chance of them being separated and adjusted is next to 0%, such a shame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gemina

IRL, defined gender roles have been skewed; not destroyed. If you think wearing a dress as a male does not make you less of a man, you have a skewed PoV as to what defines one. If you are confused or in opposition to that, I invite you to look up the word "masculinity". The best case scenario for a man wearing a dress thinking it doesn't make him less of a man is, "It doesn't help." because you will immediately be associated with femininity. Dresses, kind of have that effect. Just ask anyone who dreamed of being a Disney princess as a child if they were wanting to be a man.

Anywho, your post was at least entertaining. I mean in one clause you use real life as a reason to not have restrictions, yet in the next clause you use real life to remind people they are playing a video game. It's been some time since I've seen such a dismissive post and attitude, and that's saying something.

People pay real money to play this game, dude. Money that most of us have to work for. At jobs that during these days we are damn fortunate to have. The people who design this game and the gear also have real lives. They have families, bills, and other obligations and adult responsibilities. A lot of what they would like to do is sacrificed so players like you can come here and bemoan because some of the thoughts within the thread don't match your own.

If you want to use reality as a basis for your arguments, then at least try to be real.

---

Dresses are manly as fuck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awha

Dresses are manly as fuck.

---

A dress made with a feminine aproach wouldnt be the same as a dress made with a masculine aproach. I won't call a man who wears a female dress manly (if you talk about looks alone).

I do hope they also allow female characters to wear the topless male gear.
Genderlocked clothing is bad, after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Juzjuzz

A dress made with a feminine aproach wouldnt be the same as a dress made with a masculine aproach. I won't call a man who wears a female dress manly (if you talk about looks alone).

---

Being so concerned with your masculinity isn't very manly : P
It's like that old addage: "tough guys wear pink," not giving a shit what others think of your masculinity is pretty masculine.
You can wear a dress with a "feminine approach" and not have your clothes dictate who you are lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ItMe

Being so concerned with your masculinity isn't very manly : P
It's like that old addage: "tough guys wear pink," not giving a shit what others think of your masculinity is pretty masculine.
You can wear a dress with a "feminine approach" and not have your clothes dictate who you are lol.

---

True xD i was just talking about the outfit more than how the guy behaves. That's two different things. That's why i said "if you talk about looks alone".
I'm not mister manly, either. I get concerned about what other think of me (you got me there lol), i'm not perfect. But if i follow what you say i shouldnt guive a shit about what you think. So if i don't like pink, i don't like pink, i'm not wearing that if i have the choice.

As a gay guy, I think it's fine for people to not care for specific types of fashion. Not liking feminine looking fashion has very little to do with one's confidence in masculinity. I don't think it's any different to someone disliking a particular colour or type of food.

I'd like to see more focus on masculine looking hairstyles, casual glamour and customisation options.

I mean, pink used to literally be a "manly" color in the first half of the 20th century, and blue a "girly" one. And that only when they were given a gender connotation at all.

Quote:

---

For example, a June 1918 article from the trade publication Earnshaw's Infants' Department said, “The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl.” Other sources said blue was flattering for blonds, pink for brunettes; or blue was for blue-eyed babies, pink for brown-eyed babies, according to Paoletti.

---

It also used to be relatively common for children to be put in dresses regardless of whether they were boys or girls, for many reasons; one big one was that a long dress could be worn for longer periods of time by a growing child, whereas pants had to be replaced far more frequently. There was even a celebration called a "breeching" when boys were old enough to wear pants (well, breeches), because they were now more "grown-up".

Definitions of masculinity change from generation to generation; they've changed before, they'll change again, we're probably watching them change now. They also vary from culture to culture; a Scotsman will hardly be judged "unmasculine" because he's wearing a kilt. (And, according to many women—including me—potentially looking damned fine as he does. Witness more than a few images of, say, Ewan McGregor or David Tennant wearing kilts floating around the internet.)

Doesn't mean it's not worth getting more options that are seen as "more masculine" now, of course. Variety is excellent, especially if the women can also wear the "masculine" options. (PLEASE GIVE ME PANTS. EVEN AS A HEALER.)

But it's also not worth getting too fussed over what clothing male characters wear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rin_Sato

I do hope they also allow female characters to wear the topless male gear.
Genderlocked clothing is bad, after all.

---

Comparing exposed breasts to men wearing skin covering cloth is more revealing about you than the system, my friend :P

But, really. There's little reason gloves, shoes, and hats need to be gender restricted. Even in the most conservative sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Juzjuzz

A dress made with a feminine aproach wouldnt be the same as a dress made with a masculine aproach. I won't call a man who wears a female dress manly (if you talk about looks alone).

---

Let us be real all this focus on what clothing is considered masculine or feminine is not really masculine behavior, or if we are going based off classic gender norms when was being self conscious about ones attire ever considered manly or masculine? I get what you are saying regarding the look of the attire, but a lot of people are way to trapped up in this whole tying masculine or feminine labels onto clothing. Which is silly at this point. I do not think the clothing defines the person, so yeah if I saw Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson wearing a pink tutu, by no means would I think that man is feminine at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LisSquid

Comparing exposed breasts to men wearing skin covering cloth is more revealing about you than the system, my friend :P

---

Okay, I admit this has always struck me as a little bit strange. Women can absolutely find a man's exposed chest to be sexually attractive—I would not be surprised if a topless pin-up poster of G'raha Tia would be a very popular item in some corners of the playerbase—and yet no one objects to men being shirtless in things. But for some reason, women having their chest exposed is 'morally wrong'.

(I mean, after a certain size or in certain situations, women having their chest exposed is potentially uncomfortable; there's a reason things like sports bras exist. But if we're talking about what's socially acceptable and what's not, that isn't relevant. After all, it's not like "would this outfit be comfortable for someone actually doing these things" has been a driving factor in gear design for this game. Or superhero comics. Or the bulk of Western visual media.)

Now, I have no desire to wander around topless either in reality (see previous 'sports bras exist for a reason') or in-game, and given the various content rating systems of the world that govern video games, I can see why Square Enix would really not want to allow such a thing. But it's those content rating systems themselves that puzzle me.

Because taken in a broader cultural sense, it always seems a little weird to me that in many modern cultures we are totally okay with showing blood and violence (including death!) on prime-time television, and a shirtless man is totally okay... but as soon as a woman takes their bra off it's "OH GOD, THINK OF THE CHILDREN! WE MUST NOT CORRUPT THEIR INNOCENT MINDS! THE EVIL LADY-NIPPLES WILL BRAINWASH THEM!" or something, and before you can blink the show is consigned to HBO or a timeslot after 9pm or whatever.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Packetdancer

...

---

For real!!

However, I just always think it's funny that the comparison to something culture has deemed pornographic (I personally do not subscribe to that thinking, just so we're clear) to men wearing feminine clothing.

I'm less interested in "masculine vs feminine" and more in "these two options are very different and I like that one better".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gemina

IRL, defined gender roles have been skewed; not destroyed. If you think wearing a dress as a male does not make you less of a man, you have a skewed PoV as to what defines one. If you are confused or in opposition to that, I invite you to look up the word "masculinity". The best case scenario for a man wearing a dress thinking it doesn't make him less of a man is, "It doesn't help." because you will immediately be associated with femininity. Dresses, kind of have that effect. Just ask anyone who dreamed of being a Disney princess as a child if they were wanting to be a man.

Anywho, your post was at least entertaining. I mean in one clause you use real life as a reason to not have restrictions, yet in the next clause you use real life to remind people they are playing a video game. It's been some time since I've seen such a dismissive post and attitude, and that's saying something.

People pay real money to play this game, dude. Money that most of us have to work for. At jobs that during these days we are damn fortunate to have. The people who design this game and the gear also have real lives. They have families, bills, and other obligations and adult responsibilities. A lot of what they would like to do is sacrificed so players like you can come here and bemoan because some of the thoughts within the thread don't match your own.

If you want to use reality as a basis for your arguments, then at least try to be real.

---

Oh, wow, wearing a dress as a male removes your primary, secondary characteristics? Or impacts how you personally identify with your gender? Or does it just make bigots uncomfortable to see, and make bigots view you as less than a male? Because if it doesn't impact the first two, then I don't really care about the second. Those same bigots argued against afabs wearing pants in the 1800s-1960s. I'd assume, since one normally wouldn't argue that wearing pants makes an afab or fem-presenting person less feminine, that you're not arguing that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheMightyMollusk

I'm less interested in "masculine vs feminine" and more in "these two options are very different and I like that one better".

---

So much this.

Expressing gender via clothing choice is absolutely a deeply held concern for some people, and there clearly are many people who feel certain types of clothing are expressly tied to certain gender expressions.

On top of that, though, are just the people who prefer one option over the other in specific cases simply because they feel it just looks better on their character or feels better for their ideal of the job/role at hand. My femiqo main wears everything from long dresses to short skirts to pants. I love the 2B outfit on her but I also really wanted last years Valentione's Day "men's" button down shirt and vest. I love the original Dragoon class armour from level 50 but hate that the fem version has the stupid belly window. Allowing players to use which ever gendered version of an item they choose isn't always anything more than just wanting one option over the other because we like how one looks over the other.

Of course, all that said, it's also pretty silly to assume it's as simple as SE just ticking the "work for both genders" button on the item creation screen. Getting an item to work on all races and all genders properly with all of their possible animations and body variations (even though we don't have many in FF14) is a lot of work, and it's understandable if they can't go back and make every single piece of gear created to this point gender lock free. For items created new and now, however, there really isn't much excuse. It's still a lot of work but it should be part of the work flow, just like making all hats work on Viera and Hrothgar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MilkieTea

Oh, wow, wearing a dress as a male removes your primary, secondary characteristics? Or impacts how you personally identify with your gender? Or does it just make bigots uncomfortable to see, and make bigots view you as less than a male? Because if it doesn't impact the first two, then I don't really care about the second. Those same bigots argued against afabs wearing pants in the 1800s-1960s. I'd assume, since one normally wouldn't argue that wearing pants makes an afab or fem-presenting person less feminine, that you're not arguing that?

---

As my brother used to say, if you wear a dress your dingdong falls off. :(

Everyone knows that.

Branding people to be 'bigots' for not liking a particular style of fashion is a bit strange to me and does little to endear people to whatever point is being made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rin_Sato

I do hope they also allow female characters to wear the topless male gear.
Genderlocked clothing is bad, after all.

---

It's like that in ESO. Men can wear dresses with cleavages, because there is no gender locking. It's not a big deal. Having said that, you don't see all men suddenly running around with dresses. Everything is such a non-issue and not a big deal. Things become normal.

Everyone above who is complaining about "masculine vs. feminine", just play ESO and tell me if its a big problem or not. We don't need to go into this "what-about-ism" and "slippery slope" scenarios.

Things you mention may happen, but it may not happen. Go to ESO where there's no gender locking. You will barely see 1 out of 100 who are wearing different gender clothes, and again, only in passing. You just saw it for 2 seconds, and poof, they've walked away. That's it. It's totally not a problem at all.

Again, I want to bring up the argument with Jumping. Are you guys annoyed with Jumping or has it become normal? In 2013, in this exact forum, right after the failure of 1.0, the devs decided to implement Jumping.

Implementing Jumping in ARR was so opposed, just search you'll find 20 threads, because it will look like "players will be like rabbits just jumping all over Limsa, and breaking my immersion". What happened now? It's as normal as breathing air, heck, people who were "born" after the Jumping issue did not even know it was ever an issue because in every other MMO, it was like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hycinthus

It's like that in ESO. Men can wear dresses with cleavages, because there is no gender locking. It's not a big deal. Having said that, you don't see all men suddenly running around with dresses. Everything is such a non-issue and not a big deal. Things become normal.

Everyone above who is complaining about "masculine vs. feminine", just play ESO and tell me if its a big problem or not. We don't need to go into this "what-about-ism" and "slippery slope" scenarios.

Things you mention may happen, but it may not happen. Go to ESO where there's no gender locking. You will barely see 1 out of 100 who are wearing different gender clothes, and again, only in passing. You just saw it for 2 seconds, and poof, they've walked away. That's it. It's totally not a problem at all.

Again, I want to bring up the argument with Jumping. Are you guys annoyed with Jumping or has it become normal? In 2013, in this exact forum, right after the failure of 1.0, the devs decided to implement Jumping.

Implementing Jumping in ARR was so opposed, just search you'll find 20 threads, because it will look like "players will be like rabbits just jumping all over Limsa, and breaking my immersion". What happened now? It's as normal as breathing air, heck, people who were "born" after the Jumping issue did not even know it was ever an issue because in every other MMO, it was like that.

---

I wouldn't say 1/100, but I will say this is generally agreed upon to be the uniform for my ESO trials guild. (My friend dawning his finest)

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachmen...8/majestic.png

It's just self expression. No one lost any glamour options and people can wear whatever they want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

Branding people to be 'bigots' for not liking a particular style of fashion is a bit strange to me and does little to endear people to whatever point is being made.

---

Not liking =/= being uncomfortable because it challenges your view of gender norms.

As I stated: Or does it just make bigots uncomfortable to see, and make bigots view you as less than a male? Because if it doesn't impact the first two, then I don't really care about the second.

One thing interests me, with those who are upset by men in dresses... how do they feel about men using female characters? It's common enough after all. Is a man playing as a Viera really any different to a man wearing a dress?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Packetdancer

Because taken in a broader cultural sense, it always seems a little weird to me that in many modern cultures we are totally okay with showing blood and violence (including death!) on prime-time television, and a shirtless man is totally okay... but as soon as a woman takes their bra off it's "OH GOD, THINK OF THE CHILDREN! WE MUST NOT CORRUPT THEIR INNOCENT MINDS! THE EVIL LADY-NIPPLES WILL BRAINWASH THEM!" or something, and before you can blink the show is consigned to HBO or a timeslot after 9pm or whatever.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

---

"NIPPLZE IS TEH DEVIL'S WORK" is weird, and I don't understand the USA for it. If a woman decided to walk down a Paris street with her breasts exposed, it's quite probable nobody would really bat an eyelid. Et sur la plage.. it's quite normal to see topless women. Even in my country, topless women at the beach are rather common and nothing to blink an eye about, even with kids running around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodric

Branding people to be 'bigots' for not liking a particular style of fashion is a bit strange to me and does little to endear people to whatever point is being made.

---

please, keep caping for the person who called this request perverted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awha

.....

---

I said just by looking, ofc it doesnt define who you are. It's just looks. And i've never said i care about what others wear. I wasnt precise enough.
When a dude wears a dress made for females, i won't say he's masculine just by looking at him. That doesnt mean i consider him feminine by default. I just don't see that often, it's REALLY rare to see that where i live.
It doesnt make it uncomfortable. It's even a good thing if ppl get more things they like.
My only problem with removing genderlock is the lack of balance. Other than than that i don't really care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shibi

The grammar is shocking, but it seems like you are espousing "Any man who wears a dress isn't masculine". Is that what you are saying?

---

I'm saying it isn't masculine to wear a dress, but tomato tomata; a guy who is very masculine isn't going to have much interest in wearing a dress other than a few randos playing a goof or something. They definitely don't make it a normal part of their attire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awha

Dresses are manly as fuck.

---

This is a totally different approach. My response to that is if you think dresses are manly, then you have no idea what femininity is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awha

Let us be real all this focus on what clothing is considered masculine or feminine is not really masculine behavior, or if we are going based off classic gender norms when was being self conscious about ones attire ever considered manly or masculine? I get what you are saying regarding the look of the attire, but a lot of people are way to trapped up in this whole tying masculine or feminine labels onto clothing. Which is silly at this point. I do not think the clothing defines the person, so yeah if I saw Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson wearing a pink tutu, by no means would I think that man is feminine at all.

---

If you took this approach to a fashion design team, they would first laugh thinking you are joking, then run you out of the building once realizing that you're serious. From a view of practicality, clothing does not matter since it is only needed to cover our privates, and assist in regulating the temperature from our surrounding climate so we are comfortable in it. From a view of fashion, it has almost always been a matter of masculine, feminine, or neutral when it came to design. But clothing has always been fashioned for him, or fashioned for her. What planet are you on?

Those who wish to destroy gender norms, and gender roles are the ones who are disgusted and find these type of things silly. 98% of people on this planet fit into their respective gender role, and gladly accept their sexual assignments. This does not mean that that the extreme minority should be dismissed, but it is absolutely bat-S crazy to think that the majority will or even can change what they've been conditioned to believe, and they are also backed by science. Our current upside down society is a direct result of trying to force a square peg to fit into a round hole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gemina

I'm saying it isn't masculine to wear a dress, but tomato tomata; a guy who is very masculine isn't going to have much interest in wearing a dress other than a few randos playing a goof or something. They definitely don't make it a normal part of their attire.


This is a totally different approach. My response to that is if you think dresses are manly, then you have no idea what femininity is.


If you took this approach to a fashion design team, they would first laugh thinking you are joking, then run you out of the building once realizing that you're serious. From a view of practicality, clothing does not matter since it is only needed to cover our privates, and assist in regulating the temperature from our surrounding climate so we are comfortable in it. From a view of fashion, it has almost always been a matter of masculine, feminine, or neutral when it came to design. But clothing has always been fashioned for him, or fashioned for her. What planet are you on?

Those who wish to destroy gender norms, and gender roles are the ones who are disgusted and find these type of things silly. 98% of people on this planet fit into their respective gender role, and gladly accept their sexual assignments. This does not mean that that the extreme minority should be dismissed, but it is absolutely bat-S crazy to think that the majority will or even can change what they've been conditioned to believe, and they are also backed by science. Our current upside down society is a direct result of trying to force a square peg to fit into a round hole.

---

I will grant that in today's society clothing does have an inherent tilt towards masculine or feminine. I am of the mindset that it is more if a spectrum but that is neither here nor there. This is one of those points that no one would really be able to sway the otherside. I just find it interesting that Pants are considered more natural now even though for the longest time they were firmly considered more masculine attire proving perception can change. Yet dresses are the hill people want to die on.

Considering how many jobs involve jumps, flips, spins, and other acrobatics in their attacks, pants are far more practical. Especially if you'd rather not be flashing the goods at everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheMightyMollusk

Considering how many jobs involve jumps, flips, spins, and other acrobatics in their attacks, pants are far more practical. Especially if you'd rather not be flashing the goods at everyone.

---

That is the thing should the reasoning behind why someone prefers one piece over the other matter? Should pants are more practical, but in the end should the reason matter as to why someone would want to wear something? This is the part that confuses me regarding all of this. People are more likely to defend the ability of females wearing pants, yet when a dress comes into play it causes some conflict. If one option that goes against established gender norms, then why not another? Granted, I get one is considered stranger then the other by most standards.

Overall maybe I am just weird cause I just do not see the difference between a female asking for more pant options and male asking for more dress options.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awha

The maid and butler outfit I do personally should be up for consideration as a desirable set.

---

I remember months ago, I saw on reddit that people somehow datamined the maid outfit, alongside with other female-specific items and the bride gown, unlocked to male characters in the game files. After a while they made the bride dress available, with some of the other pieces gender-unlocked. This makes me think that they are just giving drop by drop, to keep the hype, maybe?

But since the maid/butler outfit is a mogstation item, I dunno what's keeping them for releasing the unlock, since it will instantly become more interesting to be purchased. I personally would LOVE the tailcoat in my alt, which happens to be a female character. We have the wedding one, yeah, but I think the butler tailcoat is much more interesting and less obviously matrimonial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gemina

If you took this approach to a fashion design team, they would first laugh thinking you are joking, then run you out of the building once realizing that you're serious. From a view of practicality, clothing does not matter since it is only needed to cover our privates, and assist in regulating the temperature from our surrounding climate so we are comfortable in it. From a view of fashion, it has almost always been a matter of masculine, feminine, or neutral when it came to design. But clothing has always been fashioned for him, or fashioned for her. What planet are you on?

Those who wish to destroy gender norms, and gender roles are the ones who are disgusted and find these type of things silly. 98% of people on this planet fit into their respective gender role, and gladly accept their sexual assignments. This does not mean that that the extreme minority should be dismissed, but it is absolutely bat-S crazy to think that the majority will or even can change what they've been conditioned to believe, and they are also backed by science. Our current upside down society is a direct result of trying to force a square peg to fit into a round hole.

---

Nothing about any piece of clothing is inherently gendered. What is considered masculine or feminine not only varies between cultures, but within cultures, and also changes over time. There is no quantum of gender to be found in any cloth made for humans to wear. Clinging to some idealized form of any of this can only ever be holding up one singular instance from a specific point in history as the end-all-be-all. Nothing is being destroyed. It has only always been changing.