Women and Armor!

[Remilia_Nightfall]

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.

This might surprise you, but...

[Gralna]

Lol, Aegis is still trolling this thread? If you read through everything he doesn't even really care about how revealing gear is for female characters.

I think I missed the film where Jessica Rabbit was a warrior swinging a battleaxe at a raging primal. If lounge singer were a job in this game, that gear would be very appropriate.

Stop trying to be the staunch protector of women's rights you're pretending to be, only reason you're keeping up this argument is that you want this game to be based on historical dark ages combat. Here's some news for you, this is a FANTASY game, the laws that govern it's existence are all entirely made up. You want to play a game where everyone wears head to toe plate armor? there are plenty of options out there for you, but please stop trying to force your view onto the rest of us who actually enjoy this game.

Someone please close this thread so people can read threads that have actual legitimate topics to discuss, saw there was a good one in housing thread about permission settings.

[Amused]

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.

I've not once disagreed with options being a good thing. Looking at this from a realistic standpoint, it is NOT viable to create several variations of the same outfit just to cater to an uppity minority. Creating armor is incredibly time consuming, especially when you have to adapt it to multiple different body shapes and sizes. Therefore, the only real option here is that the developers can either create a variety of different appearances for a single armor set, OR they can continue to make new armor sets.

Believe me, I LOVE having more customization options. However, having several variations of the same set is not a realistic expectation. Development takes time.

>/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.

Typically in these situations BOTH the male and female sets are impractical. I've not once in my life seen a game that has traditional, realistic, and practical armor sets for males, all whilst having bikini armor for females. The difference in sets is done to emphasize the difference in characters.

Also, why is sexuality even a bad thing? Sex is an act of love and creating new life. Our bodies are beautiful, why should we not appreciate them?

If you're going to complain about sexuality, I expect you to also be complaining about the violence. If you refuse to, then you have no leg to stand on in this argument. Violence is far more horrible than showing some skin is.

[Remilia_Nightfall]

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.

No, I am pretty sure I still see a person. People tend to be "titillated" by people, not objects. With due exceptions of course, but I believe living, warm flesh is a rather important element.

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

[Felis]

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.

Google for Kunoichi.

Lady Chiyome used what she knew from the ninja clans to train her students, but she also took advantage of their female strengths. She taught them to be seductresses, dancers, messengers and sometimes even assassins.

http://www.worldofjapan.net/2011/12/...irst-kunoichi/

[Aegis]

Google for Kunoichi.

http://www.worldofjapan.net/2011/12/...irst-kunoichi/

Wait, you're telling me a feudal japanese noblewoman was happy to exploit war orphans and prostitutes? Say it ain't so.

The Wikipedia article has not a single cited reference of them wearing revealing clothing. It also does not fit with any of the known lore about what Ninjas are in XIV. In this game, no exception is made for the difference in strength between male and female characters, even though it exists in real life, so there's no reason for them to rely on playing the performer/seductress role that your source indicates. Again, if the ninja AF were available in its fully-covering form for females and a revealing form for males too, then we would have no problem there either.

While the image of a ninja clad in black garb (shinobi shōzoku) is prevalent in popular media, there is no written evidence for such a costume.[75] Instead, it was much more common for the ninja to be disguised as civilians. The popular notion of black clothing is likely rooted in artistic convention; early drawings of ninja were showed them dressed in black in order to portray a sense of invisibility.[44]

But no, you're right. Female Ninjas all dressed in Eastern armour with a hole slashed across two vital organs.

[LineageRazor]

I wasn't going to bother with this, since you said you were "out of the thread", but since you're clearly not, here we go!

Males are protected by the "ridiculous" clause because that's how it is. Ever noticed how many females wear the recently introduced male wedding gear, and manage to look cool in it? Ever seen a male char looking cool by dressing with the female dress?
Thought so.

This undermines your argument by bringing up another important double standard. Have you ever thought about WHY women who crossdress are fine, and men who crossdress are the subject of ridicule? It just is - but why is it? It's because a woman who crossdresses is becoming more "manly", and is therefore seen as approaching a superior state of being (acceptable), while a man who crossdresses is becoming more womanly, and is therefore seen as approaching an inferior state of being (unacceptable). I'm not immune to this, but I recognize it for what it is.

Also, for all your talk about absolute territory, it brings up another important double-standard prevelent in media. You say that women are blessed with the ability to make it look good, but what you really mean to say is FANTASY women are so blessed. Women in fantasy are held to a body standard that men are not. Men can come in all kinds of shapes and descriptions and still be lead characters. You can have men that are fat, thin, ugly, handsome, pretty, muscular, scrawny, and so on. Heck, for many men (particularly those with their own poor self-image of their own bodies), having a milquetoast nobody turn out to be a great hero or villian is a powerful wish-fulfillment fantasy.

Women, though, need to both be badass AND look good. While there ARE examples, it's very, very rare to come across women in any fantasy media that are ugly and/or fat, but still badass AND in a leading role. Your vaunted absolute territory doesn't look so great on a four hundred pound woman, now does it?

Men can look like anything, and still be awesome. Women can be awesome, but only if they look attractive as well. Both of these attitudes satisfy a male perspective, even if there are plenty of women who are able to enjoy them as well.

This is reflected in the Primals as well. The four male primals? Old man. Musclebound giant. Long fish. Demon. The two female primals? Hot babe. Hot babe with feathers. All badass, but the double standard is still clearly present in the design choice.

[Remilia_Nightfall]

things

Yes I know, I really thought I was going to stop replying here but I kinda fell for it again. I am sorry, I really meant to stop, believe me :/

I think I have already answered to your question in my previous reply, tho. To summarize - the reason for which women can "crossdress" while men can't is simply because male garments are usually more neutral. Think about jeans, for example - they are worn by females all around the world now, and why is that? Because they are trousers. Simple trousers. Why don't men wear striped, schoolgirl-styled skirts, tho? Because, aestetichally, it would be HORRIBLE with male hairy legs sprouting underneath.

Also, funnily enough, women are the ones who started to dress more "manly", in recent years: no more high heels, no more skirts, less makeup, baggy clothes. it was THEIR choice when they started believing that men were "superior", and thus "dressing like men was cool".
I can assure you that, generally speaking, males prefer females who dress like females - as much as females like males who dress like damned males and not like Hildibrand at the beach.
Males can't help it, if females are the first ones who believe that "feminine = degrading".

I really fail to understand how this is not obvious. Men and women ARE different, and thus the clothing reflects those differences. There is no reason to "hide" those differences by trying to force everyone to dress the same. Why would anyone want this, unless a person was ashamed of his/her body in the first place?

[Aegis]

Yes I know, I really thought I was going to stop replying here but I kinda fell for it again. I am sorry, I really meant to stop, believe me :/

I think I have already answered to your question in my previous reply, tho. To summarize - the reason for which women can "crossdress" while men can't is simply because male garments are usually more neutral. Think about jeans, for example - they are worn by females all around the world now, and why is that? Because they are trousers. Simple trousers. Why don't men wear striped, schoolgirl-styled skirts, tho? Because, aestetichally, it would be HORRIBLE with male hairy legs sprouting underneath.

Also, funnily enough, women are the ones who started to dress more "manly": no more high heels, no more skirts, less makeup, baggy clothes. it was THEIR choice when they started believing that men were superior, and thus "dressing like men was cool".
I can assure you that, generally speaking, males prefer females who dress like females - as much as females like males who dress like damned males and not like Hildibrand at the beach.

Men dress in skirts and dresses all over the world and all through history. Greek warriors wore leather skirts, Scots still wear Kilts (though it has be said, mostly on Burn's day and at Weddings) and neither are accused of femininity. Indeed, Scottish plaid is one of the most common patterns for school skirts.

Dresses and wraps are traditionally common across the Pacific.

Cuban heels are not seen as feminine.

Hell, there's a transvestite working not 50 yards from me across the office. He's quite a funny guy and has a string of girlfriends that I know of. He doesn't appear to have a problem attracting the ladies.

[Remilia_Nightfall]

snip

I explicitly used "schoolgirl-styled skirts" as an example, not scottish kilts or wizard robes or cuban heels. I never said "all robes and skirt-like clothing is exclusively for females". I was speaking of pieces of clothing deliberately designed either for men or for women.

Wait, let me do a visual example using Japanese school uniforms:






Which one do you find less stupid?

Wait, you're telling me a feudal japanese noblewoman was happy to exploit war orphans and prostitutes? Say it ain't so.

The Wikipedia article has not a single cited reference of them wearing revealing clothing.

Tbh it is a rather well-known fact to any student of Japanese history (possessing a degree in that, I can testify to it). Courtesans and prostitutes were absolutely ideal to act as Kunoichi as they could get closer to their target quite easily by using their body as lure.
It's nothing surprising, really. And yes, orphans were often raised as spies acting as courtesans / prostitutes. This is how "ninja" were born - hardly anyone became a "ninja" of its own volition. The ninja were outlaws, criminals, and were despised by both the common folks and the noble, Samurai caste.

The modern media created the magical / martial idea of the "honorable ninja" which is now seen everywhere, but historically they were the lowest trash.