
Originally Posted by
beowulf81
2. That is exactly the issue, you're trying to shift gears after being confronted with it, buddy. You said, that the dark knight looks menacing, violent, imposing… because the job is being played by a male au ra, who looks menacing, violent and imposing. lala's do not look imposing or violent, they look cute. a lala dark knight would not look imposing or threatening. Similarly, female characters in general do not look intimidating or juggernaut-esque, not compared to their male counterparts ; they would not look like that in dark knight artifact gear either. Its not a right to appear as powerful, its a physical trait of the model you create. I could not care less that some prudes are outraged over something as harmless as gendered AF armour.
3. I am well aware of the era we are in buddy; i'm not some confused millennial with no real life experience. Men and women do not look the same, nor should they, and their differences should be celebrated, not extinguished. A physical powerful frame, an imposing presence, a violent nature… these are very masculine traits. You cannot expect to see those traits in a trim, petite, svelte female miqote. She may possess power, she may wield great power (paige hathaway squats and deadlifts a lot more than the majority of the pencil necked beta males posting in this thread, thats for damn sure; but she still looks sexy, not intimidating or physically menacing) but she will not look anywhere near as physically menacing as a male au ra, with or without dark knight AF gear. And that is not a bad thing, whatever you have read in your women's studies classes.