The tawdry female bosses are tiresome, and we could do with more male fanservice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by craybest

no one says there isn't any differences to the biological sexes. but none of those differences are "women are sexy are men are not" what is or isnt sexy depends on who looks at it, both personal opinion and society. males and females do have biological differences, both can be sexy in their own way, but for some reason, FFXIV only tends to show sexy females, that's the issue the OP is talking about.

---

I get your point but I can't let pass such formulation as "social gender norms". Hormones have real impact on brain. I can't let says it is cultural especially since neo-feminist talk a way that despises feminity as if it was something bad or the result of some machist culture. Women in Sweden are, based on feminist criterias, more free to choose than women in asia. What did researchers discover : women in Sweden tend to choose more "feminine" studies when women in asia will choose rather "masculine" studies. Based on current neo-feminist theories, it should be the opposite.

Now, come back to the OP point. Most gods-like characters are based on mythical sources where males are beast and women are dangerous beauties as a metaphor of the Nature. Is it possible to make more human-male-looking bosses? Of course. But it is not useful to use such words as tawdry or obscene.

Ask yourselves why this game needs more attractive, scantily clad males. If your answer is because 'it's only fair' then you're wrong. Fairness has nothing to do with it because as a creative work of fiction, the only thing that matters is what the creator chooses. If they choose to only have scantily clad women then that's their perogative. If they choose to add in more scantily clad men then that is also their perogative. Saying that they need to because 'it's only fair' doesn't apply. There doesn't have to be even 50/50 in everything because that's not how things work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eldevern

I get your point but I can't let pass such formulation as "social gender norms". Hormones have real impact on brain. I can't let says it is cultural especially since neo-feminist talk a way that despises feminity as if it was something bad or the result of some machist culture. Women in Sweden are, based on feminist criterias, more free to choose than women in asia. What did researchers discover : women in Sweden tend to choose more "feminine" studies when women in asia will choose rather "masculine" studies. Based on current neo-feminist theories, it should be the opposite.

---

Correct - it's misguided to try attribute these things purely to "societal brainwashing" or whatever. They are rooted in biology.

The funny thing is, looking more closely at the image the OP is talking about, she's not even really scantily clad - the outfit is just made to give the illusion of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joven

Ask yourselves why this game needs more attractive, scantily clad males. If your answer is because 'it's only fair' then you're wrong. Fairness has nothing to do with it because as a creative work of fiction, the only thing that matters is what the creator chooses. If they choose to only have scantily clad women then that's their perogative. If they choose to add in more scantily clad men then that is also their perogative. Saying that they need to because 'it's only fair' doesn't apply. There doesn't have to be even 50/50 in everything because that's not how things work.

---

I agree, they don't 'need' to do it, nor would it make sense to just adhere to some 50/50 criterion. There's already quite a few monstrous females anyway - people just don't always realise they're female (like the benthos queen), or like to pretend they're not, so they can maintain their agenda that SE is "sexist". Still, some more attractive male character bosses, like Innocence, would be appreciated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eldevern

I get your point but I can't let pass such formulation as "social gender norms". Hormones have real impact on brain. I can't let says it is cultural especially since neo-feminist talk a way that despises feminity as if it was something bad or the result of some machist culture. Women in Sweden are, based on feminist criterias, more free to choose than women in asia. What did researchers discover : women in Sweden tend to choose more "feminine" studies when women in asia will choose rather "masculine" studies. Based on current neo-feminist theories, it should be the opposite.

Now, come back to the OP point. Most gods-like characters are based on mythical sources where males are beast and women are dangerous beauties as a metaphor of the Nature. Is it possible to make more human-male-looking bosses? Of course. But it is not useful to use such words as tawdry or obscene.

---

not very true actually, most greek and roman mythology which is considered one of the most well known ones, has LOTS of sexy seminaked males. and none of them are in FFXIV. so it's not a mythology thing. it's the company actively choosing only sexy female inspiration and designs, and not male ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by craybest

not very true actually, most greek and roman mythology which is considered one of the most well known ones, has LOTS of sexy seminaked males. and none of them are in FFXIV. so it's not a mythology thing. it's the company actively choosing only sexy female inspiration and designs, and not male ones.

---

There are far more mythologies than only the greek one... Actually FFXIV refers a lot more to celtic, asian (India included) or Mesopotamian myths. They avoid both Greek/Roman myths and Egyptian myths.

EDIT : They avoid Arthurian legends too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eldevern

There are far more mythologies than only the greek one... Actually FFXIV refers a lot more to celtic, asian (India included) or Mesopotamian myths. They avoid both Greek/Roman myths and Egyptian myths.

---

They did have Scylla in the World of Darkness and she's from the Greek mythology the Odyssey:
https://i.imgur.com/Go1csjg.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joven

They did have Scylla in the World of Darkness and she's from the Greek mythology the Odyssey:
https://i.imgur.com/Go1csjg.jpg

---

There are a few other as Sophia but it is noticable there are a lot more asian references (though Shiva is a tricky one since she not refers to the god but to "shiver").

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eldevern

There are a few other as Sophia but it is noticable there are a lot more asian references (though Shiva is a tricky one since she not refers to the goddess but to "shiver").

---

Maybe they're not avoiding them so much as they haven't gotten to them yet or they just don't want to blow through everything too quickly and run out of content.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eldevern

There are far more mythologies than only the greek one... Actually FFXIV refers a lot more to celtic, asian (India included) or Mesopotamian myths. They avoid both Greek/Roman myths and Egyptian myths.

EDIT : They avoid Arthurian legends too.

---

They don't avoid Arthurian theres literally a Knights of the Round boss

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joven

They did have Scylla in the World of Darkness and she's from the Greek mythology the Odyssey:
https://i.imgur.com/Go1csjg.jpg

---

and.. Cerberus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krotoan

and.. Cerberus.

---

I forgot about him even though his fight is a lot more difficult than Scylla's. In my defense Cerberus pops up in practically everything so he's easy to overlook while Scylla is an uncommon sight so tends to stand out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReiMakoto

They don't avoid Arthurian theres literally a Knights of the Round boss

---

Well, without Coventina (the Lady of the Lake), Arthur and/or Merlin... Arthurian legends are far more wide then just a round table with twelve folks.

The problem behind Greek legends is they often involve Zeus and one of his illegitimate sons (or this kind of story) XD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eldevern

Well, without Coventina (the Lady of the Lake), Arthur and/or Merlin... Arthurian legends are far more wide then just a round table with twelve folks.

The problem behind Greek legends is they often involve Zeus and one of his illegitimate sons (or this kind of story) XD

---

And odins horse isn't problematic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krotoan

...

---

Well... I thought it was easy to understand my way of talking about Zeus and his illegitimate sons was some kind of irony but only as a humour trait... It seems the smiley was not enough. *disappointed*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eldevern

Well... I thought it was easy to uderstand my way of talking about Zeus and his illegitimate sons was some kind of irony but only as a humour trait... It seems the smiley was not enough. *disappointed*

---

Apologies the joke went over my head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joven

It's not a loaded question because it's something that's been around pretty much forever. Men get shamed for looking at a porn magazine yet women can read smutty romance novels that are just verbal pornography, which objectify both men and women, and it's perfectly acceptable (think 50 Shades of Gray). Women objectify themselves by reading books like that, but for some reason it's only bad if they believe men are doing it to them. On top of that it's an assumption that just because something is appealing that it's being objectified. It's entirely possible to admire and be attracted to something and not objectify it. As I've said before women are traditionally viewed as elegant and graceful, but somewhere down the line, somehow, it became a problem to appreciate that elegance and grace.

---

I only say it's loaded because it is incredibly nuanced and therefore to voice for any reason automatically becomes a personal attack to some. Simply the nature of the question and I accepted it the moment I hit post.

But I understand what you mean.
Also, understand that I agree with you here. If you go back to my original post you'll see that I stated that if the content isn't meant primarily for sexual purposes (romance novels, smut, certain steam games amirite lol) then the imbalance of our eyecandy can cause conversations like this. I have no issue with content purpose primarily for those purposes. I as well as I have no issue with appealing male and female alike. I adore them both. From my trash Zenos to our majestic Titania to the harrowed Tsukiyomi are some of my most favorite storylines and character designs.

I also agree that yes, it's without question that women can be beautiful without objectification. But herein lies the issue. Developers hold a hand in character design here. In how they express female and male concepts and also in what they give us in term of customisation can speak volumes. As a game designer I can see this. As another post said, developers design women and give us the ability to customise female characters to a much broader level of expression. This we cannot doubt and there is nothing wrong with this broad scope. But if we turn that perspective onto male personas, there is a limitation in expression from the view of developer design. As many have already said, there is something missing with our male counterparts. A lacking.

This is also not about the traditional view of women or men. If I'm not wrong, most are are here speaking about eyecandy. I have no qualms about either of them to be honest though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VirusOnline

As another post said, developers design women and give us the ability to customise female characters to a much broader level of expression. This we cannot doubt and there is nothing wrong with this broad scope. But if we turn that perspective onto male personas, there is a limitation in expression from the view of developer design. As many have already said, there is something missing with our male counterparts. A lacking.

---

I missed the post you're referring to (and the thread is too long to go searching for it) but if you're talking about this game specifically then I feel like there's more variety to the character designs for male characters - both in faces and body shapes - and while "lack of male glamour" seems to be a running talking point around here it seems to be partly about personal taste and a narrow definition of masculine clothing.

That said, there are differences in what the genders are given to wear that run along the same lines as the discussion over bosses. If outfits have gendered differences or counterparts, women get more revealing outfits and men get fully-covered ones. While it doesn't affect every gear piece, when it does it reinforces those stereotypes of how each gender "should" dress (or perhaps how it's expected that players will want to dress their characters).

It's frustrating when you want to go against that stereotype - in my case, mostly wanting to keep my female mage in less revealing outfits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iscah

If outfits have gendered differences or counterparts, women get more revealing outfits and men get fully-covered ones. While it doesn't affect every gear piece, when it does it reinforces those stereotypes of how each gender "should" dress (or perhaps how it's expected that players will want to dress their characters).

It's frustrating when you want to go against that stereotype - in my case, mostly wanting to keep my female mage in less revealing outfits.

---

I don't really give a shit about Fanservice in most cases, but what grinds my gears is when they strip away parts of a perfectly good outfit for the female variant. As a man of culture, and one who is using a female avatar, I can't count you the amount of times where I thought a piece of gear would've just been good if it didn't have a dumb belly, chest or shoulder spot.

I think men should be able to run around in thongs and women in bikinis all they like, but when the male level 50 dragoon gear is kickass as shit(infamous example, yes, I know), and then the female variant has more holes than a swiss cheese, I get more than a bit irate. That being said, when both outfits are equally revealing for both genders, I'm all for it, too.

Point is, while I don't really care if the bosses are all scantily clad women, I really hate having to wear a dumber, less cool-looking variant of a piece of gear simply because I'm playing with a female character. It's why you'll see me run around in the only suits of armor and robes that cover my whole body, since I like that aesthetic much more than whatever the hell this was meant to accomplish.

It looks dumb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eldevern

Not totally true. If you learn to draw, you will fast realize that to draw someone who look to be a girl/women or someone who look the be a man will share some specific shape rules based on "biological gender" (as an average).

Head skeleton of a woman and head skeleton of a man can be identified as such. You can know if it is a woman or a man based of the width of the pelvis. So no, it is not cultural or education, a part is purely genetical since humans, as any mammal has genetical inherited reproduction criterias.

---

There's no such thing as "biological gender". Gender is a social and cultural construct designed to promote masculinity and a patriarchal society. I'm not refuting that there are differences between the biological sexes. Men are rugged and women are sexy is nothing to do with the skeletal make up or reproductive organs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eldevern

I get your point but I can't let pass such formulation as "social gender norms". Hormones have real impact on brain. I can't let says it is cultural especially since neo-feminist talk a way that despises feminity as if it was something bad or the result of some machist culture. Women in Sweden are, based on feminist criterias, more free to choose than women in asia. What did researchers discover : women in Sweden tend to choose more "feminine" studies when women in asia will choose rather "masculine" studies. Based on current neo-feminist theories, it should be the opposite.

---

Again, there is no such thing as "masculine" or "feminine" studies. Just what your culture has indoctrinated you to believe. Women can be bricklayers, men can design dresses for a living.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheRealQuah

There's no such thing as "biological gender". Gender is a social and cultural construct designed to promote masculinity and a patriarchal society. I'm not refuting that there are differences between the biological sexes. Men are rugged and women are sexy is nothing to do with the skeletal make up or reproductive organs.



Again, there is no such thing as "masculine" or "feminine" studies. Just what your culture has indoctrinated you to believe. Women can be bricklayers, men can design dresses for a living.

---

And tell me, how can you be certain that you are not the one indoctrinated by our current culture?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheRealQuah

...

---

What a joke. Neo-feminists are the first who clame genders exist when it is time to attack feminity or masculinity as soon as it serves their purpose.

Women must do more craftmanships!
Women must have access to scientific studies!

The problem is... Sweden case do the demonstration that when they have a "free" choice, in cultures where women are the less influenced by stereotypes, they will choose this kind of activities neo-feminist accuse "patricarchy" to call feminine and to "lock" women in.
In Asia, it is the whole opposite. Many women who have access to studies at high level will choose sciences and to be engineer.

Based on neo-feminist claming, this kind of thing is just totally impossible and shouldn't exist/happen.

What you call "objectivity" against "patriarchal" construction IS a construction too and it's not even half objective. It is just another biais, a non assumed misandrie. Neo-feminists just want to play some kind of amazon game but don't assume it.

You are just playing with words to protect your unobjective militancy.

There is nothing to construct or to deconstruct, just to let people choose what they want based on their tastes (as soon as they respect laws, of course). Nothing more, nothing less.

The worst, in fine, they clame they want to imitate men in what they have worst : these damn stupid ego games. These games, as a man, I've always despised since they are most of time only utterly plain stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eldevern

What a joke. Neo-feminists are the first who clame genders exist when it is time to attack feminity or masculinity as soon as it serves their purpose.

Women must do more craftmanships!
Women must have access to scientific studies!

The problem is... Sweden case do the demonstration that when they have a "free" choice, in cultures where women are the less influenced by stereotypes, they will choose this kind of activities neo-feminist accuse "patricarchy" to call feminine and to "lock" women in.
In Asia, it is the whole opposite. Many women who have access to studies at high level will choose sciences and to be engineer.

Based on neo-feminist claming, this kind of thing is just totally impossible and shouldn't exist/happen.

What you call "objectivity" against "patriarchal" construction IS a construction too and it's not even half objective. It is just another biais, a non assumed misandrie. Neo-feminists just want to play some kind of amazon game but don't assume it.

You are just playing with words to protect your unobjective militancy.

There is nothing to construct or to deconstruct, just to let people choose what they want based on their tastes (as soon as they respect laws, of course). Nothing more, nothing less.

The worst, in fine, they clame they want to imitate men in what they have worst : these damn stupid ego games. These games, as a man, I've always despised since they are most of time only utterly plain stupid.

---

where do you get this drivel from

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jameseoakes

where do you get this drivel from

---

While that tirade was kind of hard to follow I think I understand the sentiment. There's this weird ideology, mostly in the western societies, that women and men share interests in all things. That a woman would choose the same type of activities a man would and that if given the choice they wouldn't do anything specifically "feminine". How this ideology backfires is in the inherent differences between men and women. Some women may share male proclivities, but they are outliers. This same ideology believes femininity and masculinity are just products of how those groups were raised, a "societal construct" if you would. However, this has been disproven numerous times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joven

While that tirade was kind of hard to follow I think I understand the sentiment. There's this weird ideology, mostly in the western societies, that women and men share interests in all things. That a woman would choose the same type of activities a man would and that if given the choice they wouldn't do anything specifically "feminine". How this ideology backfires is in the inherent differences between men and women. Some women may share male proclivities, but they are outliers. This same ideology believes femininity and masculinity are just products of how those groups were raised, a "societal construct" if you would. However, this has been disproven numerous times.

---

Where has this been proven? Sorry but this is just drivel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jameseoakes

Where has this been proven? Sorry but this is just drivel

---

Technically the burden of proof lies with you to disprove me.

On what exactly are calling drivel though? The idea that men and women are different and therefore interested in different things? The ideology believing otherwise?

Look up David Reimer as an example of how someone is raised doesn't change their nature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joven

Technically the burden of proof lies with you to disprove me.

On what exactly are calling drivel though? The idea that men and women are different and therefore interested in different things? The ideology believing otherwise?

Look up David Reimer as an example of how someone is raised doesn't change their nature.

---

I don't have to prove anything to you, your making up dangerous drivel to just justify outdated ideas on women and it's messed up. If you are going to push dangerous stuff like this you had better back it up.;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joven

While that tirade was kind of hard to follow I think I understand the sentiment. There's this weird ideology, mostly in the western societies, that women and men share interests in all things. That a woman would choose the same type of activities a man would and that if given the choice they wouldn't do anything specifically "feminine". How this ideology backfires is in the inherent differences between men and women. Some women may share male proclivities, but they are outliers. This same ideology believes femininity and masculinity are just products of how those groups were raised, a "societal construct" if you would. However, this has been disproven numerous times.

---

Tabula Rasa - The idea that humans are blank slates at birth and that everything humans do is learned from experience.

The issue with some schools of modern feminism is that gender roles are all social constructs, and that the reason why men gravitate towards certain fields of study (or life goals) and women gravitate towards other is cause society teaches women to be a certain way and men to be another in an attempt to keep society patriarchal and beneficial to men explicitly at the the cost to women. Most fields of Psychology (with credible studies) generally find this outlook to be incorrect. Men and women on average have slightly different drives and interests. It is why when you look at the fields women do gravitate towards in STEM tend to be different than men. Men averagely tend to be more object orientated, women more social orientated. This doesnt mean that all men or women, just when looking at broad groupings and trends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jameseoakes

Where has this been proven? Sorry but this is just drivel

---

It's not. When you look at countries that are higher on the index of personal freedoms and choices between the sexes, you see more divergence in life choices.

In layman's terms, in a country like Sweden which does it's damnedest to remove any obstacles of opportunity for sexes, you find a greater divergence in interests and subsequently job choices compared to countries that have less options to choose from (either due to societal or resource pressures.) So as an example, you see closer parity in job choices in China than you would in Swedan. It is something that has been infuriating some of the more left wing sections of the government, because the more they try to get a 50/50 representation in fields by trying to drive or incentivize more personal choice, the gap widens.

Evolutionary Psychology tends to attribute this towards survival setup of our species.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jameseoakes

If you are going to push dangerous stuff like this you had better back it up.;

---

The more reason to disprove him, particularly in a public forum like this one. A perfect opportunity to ensure others are exposed to the truth I say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jameseoakes

I don't have to prove anything to you, your making up dangerous drivel to just justify outdated ideas on women and it's messed up. If you are going to push dangerous stuff like this you had better back it up.;

---

"dangerous"

Is it dangerous to claim that women and men, who have been scientifically proven to have neuron links in their brain which work fundamentally differently(and thus explaining why trans people exist, as their brains are wired to be that of the opposite gender), would have inherently differing interests? Nobody is claiming women can't be interested in typically male-oriented interests or the other way around. And, yes, culture does partially explain gender roles. But to claim that there is no fundamental difference is just disingenuous, and does actually harm the idea that trans people can be, y'know, a thing.

Our brains don't work the same way for both sexes. This is objectively true. Where it gets dangerous is trying to determine exactly what those differences are and then forcing individual people to conform to it against their will. Yes, we shouldn't force people to identify in a certain way or force our cultural norms on people... but that doesn't mean there aren't differences. There are, they're just not tangible enough to be a consistent rule across every single person.

Drivel? What do you call drivel?

Because some american theorie claim women and men as gender don't exist, they would be only a "construction" it makes it a truth?

What about Christopher Dummitt who admits he falsified his conclusions in order to promote his political views?

About Sweden and Asia, I don't have to prove it, all these statistics are public. Just search them by yourself.

All these theories coming from the left-wing hippies have proven nothing.

Women and men don't share the same interest... neither all women or all men share the same interest. Gender studies don't assume they follow the model they decry. It is so hyronical. You want to do some kind of deconstruction? Start with doing the deconstruction of the deconstruction, you will realize how it is the other side of the same piece.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Driavna

The more reason to disprove him, particularly in a public forum like this one. A perfect opportunity to ensure others are exposed to the truth I say.

---

That kind of thing would never happen, for one it's a FFXIV general discussion forum, but even if that wasn't the case some people would push to get posts deleted, users banned, or the entire thread deleted before ever having a healthy debate. I'm sure many here have already been reported for some reason or other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jameseoakes

I don't have to prove anything to you, your making up dangerous drivel to just justify outdated ideas on women and it's messed up. If you are going to push dangerous stuff like this you had better back it up.;

---

A classic response from someone without an argument. Not surprised, just disappointed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melichoir

Tabula Rasa - The idea that humans are blank slates at birth and that everything humans do is learned from experience.

The issue with some schools of modern feminism is that gender roles are all social constructs, and that the reason why men gravitate towards certain fields of study (or life goals) and women gravitate towards other is cause society teaches women to be a certain way and men to be another in an attempt to keep society patriarchal and beneficial to men explicitly at the the cost to women. Most fields of Psychology (with credible studies) generally find this outlook to be incorrect. Men and women on average have slightly different drives and interests. It is why when you look at the fields women do gravitate towards in STEM tend to be different than men. Men averagely tend to be more object orientated, women more social orientated. This doesnt mean that all men or women, just when looking at broad groupings and trends.



It's not. When you look at countries that are higher on the index of personal freedoms and choices between the sexes, you see more divergence in life choices.

In layman's terms, in a country like Sweden which does it's damnedest to remove any obstacles of opportunity for sexes, you find a greater divergence in interests and subsequently job choices compared to countries that have less options to choose from (either due to societal or resource pressures.) So as an example, you see closer parity in job choices in China than you would in Swedan. It is something that has been infuriating some of the more left wing sections of the government, because the more they try to get a 50/50 representation in fields by trying to drive or incentivize more personal choice, the gap widens.

Evolutionary Psychology tends to attribute this towards survival setup of our species.

---

It's also easy to see just on the basis of biology. Men are built differently then women. Men are more suited for physical activities and are more likely to take up more dangerous jobs that typically pay more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joven

It's also easy to see just on the basis of biology. Men are built differently then women. Men are more suited for physical activities and are more likely to take up more dangerous jobs that typically pay more.

---

Well yes. that would be the logical assumption to make - We are a sexually dimorphic species. It would make sense that if there are physical traits that differ between the sexes, such as men being averagely taller and stronger, or women have more acute sense of smell, taste, and color range, that we would also have neurological differences as well on average.

Evolutionary Psychology and the differences in men and women aside, I wanted to comment regarding the whole objectification and oggling women and what not that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VirusOnline

Snip

---

Gonna use this as the basis for the comment I reply to. I think people conflate Beauty and Eye Candy, with Objectification.

Ill say it simply. Beauty is appreciating an aesthetic. I think a flower can be beautiful, or a sunset. It doesnt mean I want to sleep with it. Much the same, I can find a woman beautiful or a man handsome and have no sexual desire towards them. Understanding the pleasant nature and aesthetics of something isnt the same has being attracted to it.

Eye candy is appreciating something that is visually 'desirable'. Sharp Dressed person, A person in an elegant dress, a person in casual clothes, person in a bikini or speedo. It doesnt have to be about how much skin is showing, it will vary from person to person, and is contextually dependent. There is nothing wrong with eye candy.

Objectification is reducing someone down to the state of an object and nothing more. This isnt inherently a bad thing, believe it or not. Context matters. For a simple fable, turning a person into a prop as a simple motive works fine. The gallant knight fights the dragon for the beautiful princess. The tale is about the knight and the dragon fighting, the princess is the motivation. It's simple and straight forward because the highlight isnt the princess, its the knight and his actions. You can post modernize it and be like "Well we can see that the knight is a shallow terrible human being and so on so forth", but there is such thing as reading to much into things.

The context that Objectification gets used most, however, is if you create a sexy woman character, it must be because they are there as nothing more than sex appeal to be oggled. A prize. This is reducing Beauty and Eye Candy to objectification. That to have a sexy female or male character is inherently objectifying. It's not. Context matters. If you have a setting with barbarians and the women are wearing loosely nothing, but so are the men (Think Frank Frazetta's Conan), then its not inherently objectification just cause you have 'sexy' female characters. It only becomes objectification if the character only exists for the specific gratification of the desires of the target audience. So if you had a game where you fight dragons and everyone wears a refrigerator as armor, but the female lead shows up in nothing but a bikini and there is no real consistency in why this is, either in game or from a character writing standpoint that is consistent with the overall tones and dialogue, then you can go ahead and claim objectification. But that requires nuance and context to identify.

And this is the issue when discussing or suggesting that "Women are only designed for the male gaze" or other such nonsense. It over simplifies the discussion in favor of forcing a point instead of discussing the nuance of the situation. It refuses to acknowledge that you can have characters who are eye candy while still being fleshed out and dimensional. Which means you need to take context into account and do the work on a case by case basis.

It's fine to find characters sexually appealing, and it's find to design characters to be such, but shaming people for having basic human desires is stupid and narrow minded. Having sexy characters is only an issue if they exist solely for the purpose of gratifying those desires - something which I firmly believe is not trend in main stream gaming anymore for the simple reason that it leads to flat and boring characters and plot. Instead, the argument of objectifying female characters is a throwback argument - something that mightve been relevant 20-30 years ago with things like Duke Nukem, but has for the longest while been steadily phased out. I feel it gets brought up time and time again not because it is currently a relevant point, but that its an easy stick to beat someone else with. On paper it sounds like a cogent argument, but when broken down into pieces and thought out, it doesnt actually hold up that well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krotoan

Good.. the non-sequiturs are getting jarring. Byeeee!

---

Agreed.
Apologizes if I got hostile.

So I haven't read every reply, mostly because I think most of the replies are fodder. But did anyone point out the female bosses that don't look like this?

The Ant Princess in Cutter's Cry
The Miser's Mistress in Aurum Veil, though it might not be "female"
Sabotender Empiratriz in Qarn HM
Tioman in Sohm Al
The Queen Hawk in St Mocianne's Arboretum
Progenitrix in Pharos Sirius HM
Dotoli Ciloc, the second boss in Xelphatol
Lorelai in Sirensong Sea, does she qualify?
The Mist Dragon in The Burn, though it is only speculation since the idea behind the boss is based on a female, nothing states the boss is female.
Second boss of Holminster Switch, name withheld for spoilers.
The Armadillo from Malikah's Well... I mean you steal her baby for crying out now.
And the final boss of Anamnesis Anyder... she was pregnant too, YOU BASTARDS, lol

Take these with a grain of salt. While some of these are confirmed female, others are just here to pad the joke, but there are at least hints they could be female. Not like I took a random mob and just assumed it's gender... who would do that, XD

this topic is quickly going anywhere but where the OP post was about.
He said "there's way too many saminaked girls as bosses and too few guys in sexy clothes in this game"
it doesn't matter if we have biological differences, or whatever some people are talking about by now.
Not all people who play this game are straight males, and many of us would like to see more variety in the archetypes, and it's becoming a more and more overused cliche to have random sexy and seminaked women as bosses.
that's all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by craybest

this topic is quickly going anywhere but where the OP post was about.
He said "there's way too many saminaked girls as bosses and too few guys in sexy clothes in this game"
it doesn't matter if we have biological differences, or whatever some people are talking about by now.
Not all people who play this game are straight males, and many of us would like to see more variety in the archetypes, and it's becoming a more and more overused cliche to have random sexy and seminaked women as bosses.
that's all.

---

Are you making the assumption that only straight males want female bosses in skimpy clothes, and would dislike more males dressed similarly? That that is the reason for the boss design of this game? That's a very close-minded thought process, in my opinion. Not saying to you that that is your thought process, just asking the question. To quote a great argument from earlier in this thread, for that matter:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lasana

What's really tawdry and tiresome at this point, PondHollow, is the unmistakable smell of 1950s "cover it up, ladies!" misogyny cloaking itself in a flag of moral decency. It's always disappointing to see that lives on in people like you.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lasana

If a woman's body is not obscene, why does it matter if an outfit a woman is wearing is obscene? The answer is it doesn't, unless the speaker actually means something else. They invariably do, and the word itself betrays why. "Obscene" is a word that relies on moral decency, or else it wouldn't work. You would just call it skimpy. But you don't. Instead, you use a word that appeals to some nebulous set of (historically, male-imposed) values that women should adhere to, a word that has been used to police and shame women for their bodies, behavior, and attire for far longer than you or I have been alive. I'm not surprised people still accept it, believe it, and use it - but again, it's very sad to see it lasts even in a space I like to escape to.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lasana

Well, "SE intentionally sexes up many of the bosses we encounter in the game" strikes me as a heavily opinionated statement, and I am not sure why you tie my objection to a real person's actual language to it, but I'll play along:

No. In some cases, it's because the design is an homage. Cloud of Darkness, Sophia, and Shiva's appearances are all based on their appearances in other Final Fantasies. Cloud of Darkness looks like she does in XIV because she's based on her appearances in III and Dissidia. Sophia is based on Goddess in FFVI. Shiva is the only one that's been reimagined because she looks different every time, but she's still clearly designed to draw on her past appearances (some of which have skimpier or even no clothing). You could argue that XIV could make them look more "modest" - whatever that means - but they were clearly designed with homage in mind, just as Exdeath and Kefka were. I don't think it's fair to fault XIV for this.

Taking your example of Primal Ryne, she, again, is based on Shiva. Shiva's appearance informs hers. That's not surface level cheesecake, it's a sign they actually sat down and thought about what the WoL's memories would make a Shiva'd!Ryne look like.

So we're back to enemies like Voidsent succubi, Forgiven Venery and her clones, maybe the Ruby Princess and the second boss in the Arboretum Hard mode, and the new one in 5.3. I'm not 100% clear on how often models are reused, but I notice that the Voidsent and the Sin Eater ladies look very similar. I believe there's some thematic intent to that, but I also think it's just easier from a development standpoint to repurpose and embroider on a model you already have. So again, I don't think it's just surface-level cheesecake. The Ruby Princess shows some belly* because she's wearing an outfit that I notice looks a lot like the gear her dungeon drops and which the beefy Male Highlander tank in my group appears to have been grinding all day, because I can see every inch of him from Ul'dah to Kugane. In other words, she's wearing attire that is equal opportunity fashion in-game. I don't see why I should be offended by that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by craybest

this topic is quickly going anywhere but where the OP post was about.
He said "there's way too many saminaked girls as bosses and too few guys in sexy clothes in this game"
it doesn't matter if we have biological differences, or whatever some people are talking about by now.
Not all people who play this game are straight males, and many of us would like to see more variety in the archetypes, and it's becoming a more and more overused cliche to have random sexy and seminaked women as bosses.
that's all.

---

It comes with the territory when talking about what genders finds appealing or not. Especially when words like "sexism" or "objectifying" comes into play.

I just want to see more (actual) monster girls. Especially as Trials/Raids and NPC's :(
And sexy male Trials/Raids and NPC's. My Hrothgar and Roegadyn can only do so much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SomeRandomHuman

Why must all the scantily clad bosses be female? Need I remind people there was an actual army of men that went to battle entirely naked? I've no issues with bosses designed with sex appeal. I just think it, like everything else, should be equal-opportunity. Wet get a female boss in a chainmail bikini? Give us a male boss in a codpiece to please.

We get a very pretty and well endowed looking female boss with emphasis on the chest and face? Give us a male boss that's well-endowed and emphasize the crotch, chest, and biceps then.

---

Bumping this since it pretty much says what would suit the majority.