Women and Armor!

[Edellis]

I feel this is an issue in pretty much every MMO on earth...but FFXIV is probably one of the weakest offenders of this issue. Most of the armor sets between males and females are PRACTICALLY identical, save for maybe the dragoon AF armor?

The video makes perfect sense, but only the most hardcore of complainers would turn this on ARR. You have to literally try to show skin on this game, and if you are, the male outfits are showing just as much, if not literally the same amount.

[Edellis]

nevermind, this thread is stupid.

[Amused]

Even if the female armors are the only ones that are bikinis it is STILL not misogynistic. It is STILL not objectifying.

mi·sog·y·ny
noun \mə-ˈsä-jə-nē\
Definition of MISOGYNY

: a hatred of women

ob·jec·ti·fy
verb \əb-ˈjek-tə-ˌfī\

: to treat (someone) as an object rather than as a person

The only people here treating the female characters as objects are the ones insisting that they're being objectified simply by wearing the revealing armor.

[HakuroDK]

snip

I still think the gaping holes in the DRG/NIN AF armors are stupid.

[Amused]

I still think the gaping hole in the DRG/NIN AF armors are stupid.

You're entitled to that opinion, but it doesn't make them misogynistic, it doesn't make them objectifying, and it doesn't make them bad designs any more than all the spikes on the DRG AF does.

Personally I think the revealing parts of the NIN armor are fine, and make sense.

[HakuroDK]

Personally I think the revealing parts of the NIN armor are fine, and make sense.

How do you figure they make sense?

[Amused]

How do you figure they make sense?

Ninjas aren't supposed to be getting hit in the first place. Regardless of whether people here want to accept it or not, women can and have used their looks to take advantage of men in situations. Something like this is perfect for someone who is trying to assassinate people. The female Ninja could use her looks to catch her male target off-guard, before going in for the kill. Therefore, it makes sense.

[Aegis]

Even if the female armors are the only ones that are bikinis it is STILL not misogynistic. It is STILL not objectifying.

mi·sog·y·ny
noun \mə-ˈsä-jə-nē\
Definition of MISOGYNY

: a hatred of women

ob·jec·ti·fy
verb \əb-ˈjek-tə-ˌfī\

: to treat (someone) as an object rather than as a person

The only people here treating the female characters as objects are the ones insisting that they're being objectified simply by wearing the revealing armor.

You don't think dehumanising someone because of their gender is misogynistic? To treat someone as an object is to reduce their value as a human. You look at them and don't see a person, you see an object.

A woman can't wear the same piece of armour as a man (example: the Ninja AF) without being forced to expose their chest. A sexual element is introduced that is not present for the man. That's objectification. That's reducing someone to their physical characteristics. I don't care if you don't accept that or even if you don't understand it. It just is.

It might be harder to see with XIV because the examples are fairly modest. Consider Tera or Scarlet Blade or whatever. A guy in plate mail is a guy in plate mail. Functional (disregarding ludicrous spikes and pauldrons), deadly. A woman in the same gear is a walking pair of boobs and backside. There for titillation and, let's face it, fap material. That's objectification. No question.

In XIV the examples are more modest, but it's a quantitative difference, not a qualititive one. The difference is a matter of degree.

Galka are beastlike with a tail. Roegadyn are not a bit beastlike. They are just big with no tail.
only in the size.
standard elve type

So it's just a coincidence that the gender exclusivity was also carried over? Only female Miqo'te, only male Roegadyn? They were based squarely on XI races. How can you argue otherwise with a straight face?

[Amused]

You don't think dehumanising someone because of their gender is misogynistic?

The only people doing any dehumanizing here are the ones who keep insisting that this is misogynistic or objectifying. The only people reducing them to objects are the people saying they're being objectified.

Also, this might come as a shock to you, but, women and men dress differently, even in real life. Whether or not the outfit is sexual is entirely up to the interpretation of the person looking at it.

>A woman in the same gear is a walking pair of boobs and backside. There for titillation and, let's face it, fap material. That's objectification. No question.

Again, these are the words coming from you, not me. You are saying that they are just a walking pair of boobs and backside, not me or anyone else. I've never once considered characters in revealing armor to be nothing more than their bodies.

[Aegis]

Also, this might come as a shock to you, but, women and men dress differently, even in real life. Whether or not the outfit is sexual is entirely up to the interpretation of the person looking at it.

If I lend my wife my T-shirt, it doesn't become nipple tassles. My wife is able to buy a shirt the same design as mine without the person at the cash register swapping it with a bikini. The point is, in these games, women can't wear the all the same things as men. The option is never presented. The alternatives they are provided with are changed purely to show off sexual characteristics.

Again, these are the words coming from you, not me. You are saying that they are just a walking pair of boobs and backside, not me or anyone else. I've never once considered characters in revealing armor to be nothing more than their bodies.

/Headdesk. Are you gonna tell me with a straight face that the plate mail bikini design is not designed purely for titillation? That there's a practical reason for it and a practical reason for men not to have the same? If not, then can you provide another explanation other than to promote their sexual characteristics? There is so much denial going on here.

Funny jokes aside, what Amused is saying is pretty much spot on. Where you see "objectification", we see "characterization". To each his own.

The characterisation argument would hold more water if the only criteria for the change weren't gender and if the only changes weren't simply to show more skin.