Armor designs for females?

[Ashiel]

Sorry Ashiel but I'm not following your argument.

I've enjoyed much of the art you posted, I don't understand why you can't emphasize with a plea of someone who just wants to be able to play a non-cheesecake PC in games where that option doesn't exist?

It might not have been clear since I quoted someone who had quoted someone else (and so the original quote was removed for brevity by the forums), but the post went like this.

I go with the idea, if it's making someone uncomfortable, change it.

If someone is not having a good time with that, change it.

Too bad if some people liked, it's unfair that some people are having a good time while others are unhappy.

Obviously you have to be reasonable, if it’s an important concept or a core element you don’t have to change it, that goes without saying.

I bet a lot of people hated when good changes were made, too bad they had to be done.

My post said:

Yeah, it goes both ways. Maybe Amazon and company are making others feel uncomfortable, and thus should change. Except, I would hazard to guess, that wouldn't be acceptable because to them they're the "good guys" making the "right choices".

Which, for the umpteenth time...
A. Aesthetic preferences.
B. Moral indignation.
C. All of the above.

Pick one.

See, Amazon's only concerned about certain people being uncomfortable for certain things due to Amazon's personal moral indignation. It's actually quite irrelevant who or how uncomfortable it makes people by trying to change things that others enjoy to suit their personal preferences, because to them, they're doing the "right" thing and the others are "wrong" or "bad" for being made uncomfortable by the hostility towards things they like.

I mean, she sees it as unfair that some are having fun but not others, so her solution is to change what those having fun like so that those who didn't like it now do, even if the others liked it before. As I noted before, this would be like saying that Mortal Kombat is too violent, demanding that fatalities and blood be removed from the game to make it less uncomfortable for people who don't like Mortal Kombat, even if those are things that make the current fans like Mortal Kombat.

It's quite asinine. It's impractical, short sighted, and comes off as very hostile. It's also pointless, given that there are tons of games and if one game doesn't appeal to you, you have a buffet line of other games to choose from. Likewise, many times the complaint extends to the inclusion of anything that offends their moral sensibilities.

Here's an example. Back on the Paizo boards, in I think 2014 or maybe 2013 (it's been a while), there was an argument over video games and their depictions of women. When Final Fantasy VII was mentioned, lots of the "omg, vidja gaemes is hostile to the wee-mons" crowd complained about Tifa Lockheart. Because she had boobs. Big boobs. Like big boobs are somehow not something that actually happens (incidentally, I've met women who have a figure like Tifas, one of which actually makes Tifa's boobs look small by comparison without implants. My sister used to work out with her all the time).

So what's the cast of Final Fantasy VII look like?

You've got Aeris, Tifa, and Yuffi. Each of them have different builds, different kinds of outfits, and different heights, and well pretty much different everything. But they were insistent FF7 was bad because Tifa had larger than average breasts (hint: there's a funny thing about averages). The only people during that conversation that saw Tifa as a pair of tits and nothing more were the moral indignants. The rest of us could sit there and recite facts about her personality, her accomplishments, her dark moments, her ultimate weapon, her limit breaks, her reasons for becoming a hero, her literally rescuing Cloud both mentally and physically, etc.

Keep in mind I also said:

Well, see, your idea of something improving doesn't necessarily mesh with someone else's idea of something improving. For example, you (or was it someone else) linked Rainbow Mika as an example of a character that's "wrong". Except, my brother's girlfriend loved Rainbow Mika. She was upset when Capcom decided to change the camera motions to hide her sassy spank during her super in the US release.

I'm more of a live and let live sort. I think you're both right, and both wrong. Kind of a yin and yang. You want to suggest some art you prefer? Go for it. You want to say "This makes me a bit uncomfortable", that's fine too. However, what I typically see (including in this thread) is condemnation and explicit declarations of "wrongness" based on peoples A) aesthetic preferences, or B) their moral preferences, which are not universal and to condemn these things is to tread upon the rights of others to enjoy those things.

So, in the same way that I rebuked idiots like Jack Thompson or Patricia Pulling, I'll go on rebuking anyone else who follows in their footsteps. We could all sit, hold hands, sing songs and share art. We could agree to like what we like, and influence the world through spreading what we enjoy. Or we can continue as we are doing, with nobody really giving any inches and everyone getting progressively more and more distant from one another, digging trenches.

I'm sitting on the fence, you see. I've no particular preference for the art one way or the other, so I'm naturally going to bite at whomever is invading over the fence. If it was the "We like the sexy" people trying to bash on the art you guys like, I'd be on your side instead. Of course, the only aggressors I've seen have been those who are morally outraged or trying to profess their aesthetic preference as the one true way.

[Ashiel]

I agree that was a naive idea.

I just want to point out that I never said that someone who enjoy any form of media is sexist, only the media. hate the game not the player

[Ashiel]

Short history lesson: this particular style of garb started as just normal clothes in Japan. Specifically, underwear. Ordinarily, you're supposed to wear at least proper pants (hakama) over it, like is still done in Kendo, Aikido etc.

Wow, you learn something new every day.

[Max_Killjoy]

Sorry I missed this earlier.

I think you mischaractorise me by saying "some random reason I just made up". The only criteria I suggested was that the character be human. The reason is not random, but as I said in an earlier post, because who knows what is considered attractive in the various other races depicted (is Frodo attractive by Hobbit standards)?

I wasn't even thinking of your posts when I wrote that.

As for hero as a constraint, that was the premise first being discussed between Ashiel and Amazon. Whether it was legitimate depends on what precisely (not, what generally) their point was. I didn't go back and check, I just wanted to point out that Amazon's counter-examples were not (in my opinion) valid. I can guess it had something to do with whether its possible for an unattractive male/female to be portrayed positevely, with 'hero' standing in proxy for 'positive portrayal'.

Positive portrayal or not, "unattractive" characters in visual media tend to be overwhelmingly male. If a female character is portrayed, she is very likely to be in some way "attractive".

As for unattractive depictions of villians - i am happy to look into it with you. But first, I want to be clear about what the point you are trying to demonstrate is. Because I can conceive of a person trying to argue either of the following from a feminist perspective:
- Female villians should not be unattractive (or at least not to a greater degree that unattractive female heroes) because that suggests that a woman who is unattractive is not someone who should be accepted.
- Female villians should be unattractive on at least some occassions to better reflect the fact that women come in lots of shapes, sizes and degree of attractiveness.

I think your point is the second, but I'd be grateful if you'd confirm before we go any further.

I wasn't trying to make a "should" point, I was making an observation.

[Orcus The Vile]

I mean, she sees it as unfair that some are having fun but not others, so her solution is to change what those having fun like so that those who didn't like it now do, even if the others liked it before. As I noted before, this would be like saying that Mortal Kombat is too violent, demanding that fatalities and blood be removed from the game to make it less uncomfortable for people who don't like Mortal Kombat, even if those are things that make the current fans like Mortal Kombat.

However, She did say that the core element of the game needs to be preserved and is free from change.

I think it's safe to asume that extreme levels of violence is the core element of MK have ALL the female characters dress as strippers is not.

[Max_Killjoy]

Sorry Ashiel but I'm not following your argument.

I've enjoyed much of the art you posted, I don't understand why you can't emphasize with a plea of someone who just wants to be able to play a non-cheesecake PC in games where that option doesn't exist?

While it grinds my gears that when I look for male fantasy character illustrations I have to wade through so many images of scowling surly steroid abusers
...but I'd be even more chafed if I could only get

---

"I'd like more options for non-sexualized / non-pinup female characters in games and game art".

"Treat visual character depictions the same regardless of whether the character is male or female."

"Don't pander and objectify."


They seem like simple requests to me, and yet they generate such an firestorm of backlash.

[Liquor Box]

We are talking mostly about Nerdgenres - Fantasy, Sci-Fi and Superheros. Those genres do have vast numbers of non-humans (And humans that don't look the part; see Beast and Ben Grimm).
And I find the point, especially in regards to Hobbits and Gimli to be somewhat dishonest as well. They are humanoids, specifically constructed to look relatively human (And, played by humans in Live-action to boot, without much mask). I mean, noone would argue elves to fall under the theoretical spectrum of human attraction? I have heard from some Fantasy-loving bears (The gay culture definition, not the animal) that they quite like dwarves, and I can see why that would fit together. As was pointed out, in Star Wars, Twi'lek, despite clearly not human have a very large following of humans attracted to them - they are human enough for that.
Certainly, "humans, but smaller and more bearded" or "human, but strangely coloured with two tentacles instead of hair" aren't TECHNICALLY human, but they might really as well be.

Regarding genres, are we. I didn't see that specified.

Anyway, even within those three genres, there are literlly thousands of human characters. If there is so much trouble (that it took four attempts and about 30 examples) to identify a singly human heroic male who is clearly ugly, I think clearly demonstrates that human males are only rarely deomstrated as ugly.

As to Hobbits and Gimli, I wonder if he word "dishonest" is a bit strong, when you merely disagree with me - I mean did I lie to you? While Elves may be sexually attractive to humans, I think that dwarves (other than the fetishes you mention), hobbits, foxes, creatures that look like rocks etc are clearly not. My point is that they are not unttractive by the standards of their own speicies.

Is Simba (from the lion king) a good example of an unattractive male, and Nala an example of an unnattractive female because neither (one would hope) is attractive to humans (both being animals)? I think that that is not what is meant for the purposes of this discusison, both might be attractive by the standards of lions - and that is what matters for the movie.

She? As an example of an ugly female heroine? I mean, the text might be readable as that (Though I would argue the "harsh" is more concerned with personality than attractiveness). But in a visual medium, statements on the character's looks mean jack**** when not qualified by the art. And, seriously, this is not an unattractive woman.
A very sexualised woman, certainly - the outfit is complete bogus, and only gets by without cleavage through showing EVERYTHING ELSE. I must admit, showing the abs might even be good for characterisation, but wearing normal pants might fit better, if the goal is "strong female fighter" and not "muscular lingerine model".
One could even argue, from her description, if she fits the definition of "hero" - while maybe not villain, it doesn't read as a hero to me.

Spoiler: image, in case anyone wants to judge for themselves

Show

I suppose attractiveness is always subjective. The text does confirm that the caracter is at least intended to be unattracitve. I thinkshe is as unttractive as any of the men identified by mendicant (all of whom are either muscular or slim, so have good bodies like Ayane, even if their faces are open to interpretation).

Whether she is sexualised, or her outfit is bogus is a different point to whether sheis attractive or not. If your point is about sexualisation of women, instead of whether women are sometimes depicted as less than attractive, that is a seperate argument (which I think is also happening in this thread)..

Her description suggest hero to me - no negative points (apart from her appearance).

(Also, as for the characters you cannot identify, the first one is Rorschach from Watchmen - certainly a hero; as much so as the setting permits for them.)

Rorschach is identifed as an "anit-hero" on wikipedia, and anti hero is defined as aprotagonist who lacks heoric qualities. I suggest that one of the heroic qualities he lacks is looks (like ayane). However, I think he qualifies and is probably the best example yet (it took four attempts). Thank you for identifying him.

[Liquor Box]

I wasn't even thinking of your posts when I wrote that.

Ok

Positive portrayal or not, "unattractive" characters in visual media tend to be overwhelmingly male. If a female character is portrayed, she is very likely to be in some way "attractive".

Well that is thr point under discussion between me and severla others. And it appears, at least when it comes to heroic humans, portrayal of unattractive males (i accept females as well) tends to be pretty rare.

Anyway, I think the line of discussion was about positive portrayals, perhaps because negativ protrayals may have different implications. As noted, the line of discussion originated between Ashial and Amazon, I only chimed in with respect to a post that I thought was deficient, and have now been caught up in defending that post of mine.

I wasn't trying to make a "should" point, I was making an observation.

Ok. I'm not sure if I agree with your obsevation. But before going into it, I would prefer to know how you think it relates to the discussion as a whole.

[Ashiel]

However, She did say that the core element of the game needs to be preserved and is free from change.

I think it's safe to asume that extreme levels of violence is the core element of MK have ALL the female characters dress as strippers is not.

Spoiler: Hmmmm

Show

It's not enough for the moral indignants to have aspects that appeal to multiple aesthetics in the same game, only their preference. Everyone else is wrong. They're somehow corrupting the society with their preferences. The usual spiel.

I have no sympathy left for that position.

EDIT: I mean, take an audit of which side of this conversation has been actively hostile. Go back and look. At worst I've been cheeky, or poked fun at bad arguments. The moral indignants jumped strait to getting dirty as soon as their position met with resistance or challenge, rapidly escalating to name calling and various fallacious appeals (including but not limited to ad hominems, slippery slope fallacy, and appeals to emotion), and choosing to not view posts that are contrary to their own (in the case of Max).

[Tobtor]

As to Hobbits and Gimli, I wonder if he word "dishonest" is a bit strong, when you merely disagree with me - I mean did I lie to you? While Elves may be sexually attractive to humans, I think that dwarves (other than the fetishes you mention), hobbits, foxes, creatures that look like rocks etc are clearly not. My point is that they are not unttractive by the standards of their own speicies.

But the point is you often see males of "unattractive" "races" while females are often Elves or fairies or similar. As the audience is human, it is clear that females are still made to be attractive as their main characterisitc, while men can be attractive, strong, clever, a tragic misunderstood creature (hunchback from Notre dame) or any other number of things. People are not arguing that there shoul not be attractive female heroes. But that women should be treated just like men. That is if it makes sense for them to be attractive, by all means let them be. But when they are out adventrueing DO NOT have them where stilletto heels (invented in the 20th century by the way, they appear far too often in stories of the past).

Yes the point stands out clearer for antagonist (the latest Bewulf movie is a good example:

Spoiler

Show

Male monster:

female monster:



complete with "stilletto heels"!

The second point is that famles are always (or at leats very frequently) "dressed" to be sexy, while the men are dressed to be competent at what they do!

I don't mind women in no clothing. If we have a culture where everyone fights nude, then both men and women should do so (instead media will often have women in something that looks like a bikini). If we have a culture where people fight in armour, then both men and women should wear armour (instead media will often have women in something that looks like a bikini). It shouldn't be that hard.

[kraftcheese]

As to Hobbits and Gimli, I wonder if he word "dishonest" is a bit strong, when you merely disagree with me - I mean did I lie to you? While Elves may be sexually attractive to humans, I think that dwarves (other than the fetishes you mention), hobbits, foxes, creatures that look like rocks etc are clearly not. My point is that they are not unttractive by the standards of their own speicies.

Is Simba (from the lion king) a good example of an unattractive male, and Nala an example of an unnattractive female because neither (one would hope) is attractive to humans (both being animals)?

You keep trying to make this point, but it doesn't make sense; it doesn't matter whether the characters are attractive within the story, or to other hobbits, etc. because they're characters that have been created by human beings (or actors picked by humans) in media for consumption by humans.

It's the same problem as when people say "It's *female character*'s choice to dress this way; why's it ok for women to dress like that irl but not in media?"; the characters aren't real people making their own decisions, they're characters in media with a creator and an audience.

[Ashiel]

But the point is you often see males of "unattractive" "races" while females are often Elves or fairies or similar. As the audience is human, it is clear that females are still made to be attractive as their main characterisitc, while men can be attractive, strong, clever, a tragic misunderstood creature (hunchback from Notre dame) or any other number of things. People are not arguing that there shoul not be attractive female heroes. But that women should be treated just like men. That is if it makes sense for them to be attractive, by all means let them be. But when they are out adventrueing DO NOT have them where stilletto heels (invented in the 20th century by the way, they appear far too often in stories of the past).

Hmmm... you've given me something to think about. Stay tuned.

[Floret]

Spoiler

Show

While the rhetoric, as applied in the comments adressed in the video, is indeed really, really skeevy and questionable, simply replacing words can heavily change the context. For the critique of the "love the sinner, hate the sin" rhetoric to apply here, sexism and homosexuality would have to be equal in some form. And... I just don't think they are.
Sure, sexism, too, is not a distinct action/sin, but a set of beliefs (or a subset of a larger set, most people aren't sexist in all the ways it is possible to be sexist in). But on the contrasting side, it isn't an ingrained part of a person; but just that: a set of beliefs. To equate the two is such a way is, I think, not something you can do. And with that equation falls the equation of arguments.

Regarding genres, are we. I didn't see that specified.

Anyway, even within those three genres, there are literlly thousands of human characters. If there is so much trouble (that it took four attempts and about 30 examples) to identify a singly human heroic male who is clearly ugly, I think clearly demonstrates that human males are only rarely deomstrated as ugly.

As to Hobbits and Gimli, I wonder if he word "dishonest" is a bit strong, when you merely disagree with me - I mean did I lie to you? While Elves may be sexually attractive to humans, I think that dwarves (other than the fetishes you mention), hobbits, foxes, creatures that look like rocks etc are clearly not. My point is that they are not unttractive by the standards of their own speicies.

Is Simba (from the lion king) a good example of an unattractive male, and Nala an example of an unnattractive female because neither (one would hope) is attractive to humans (both being animals)? I think that that is not what is meant for the purposes of this discusison, both might be attractive by the standards of lions - and that is what matters for the movie.

Well, it wasn't specified, but really, looking at what is being discussed and in this forum? It was what was being talked about.
The fact argued wasn't "there are loads of them" but "there are some, while there are pretty much no female variants". Noone claimed ugly heroes to be in any way near the majority.
As for "not unattractive by the standards of their own species"... That doesn't MATTER. Because that is made up. The viewers aren't of that species. We all aren't of that species, that species does not exist, their culture, their spectrums of attraction do all not exist. Someone made that up, and invented the rules; but real-life reception of these doesn't work by those rules. It works by the rules of attraction of real-life human people. What a made-up culture thinks is attractive is wholly constructed, and irrelevant to the discussion of real-life media depictions and their impact.
I, as a human, real person, am not judging the attractiveness of Twi'lek by their own societies standards, but by real-life human standards, just as any one of us does (Likewise with dwarves, hobbits, elves, orcs, etc.). The sexualised Asari of Mass Effect aren't sexualised because of their own culture, they are sexualised by a human being that drew them to be attractive to human beings, wholly unrelated to any cultural beauty standards that same (or any other person) made up for the corresponding culture. The impact of sexualisation is not due to them being attractive by those made-up standards, but due to them being attractive by real-world ones.

And I find the argument to be somewhat in bad faith, at least. I mean, seriously, to take "human" so literally as to completely exclude and disregard even the most human-looking humanoids is really, really stretching believability as to being anything more than an arbitrary criteria to exclude given examples. Crash bandicoot (The fox guy)? Yeah, that one doesn't count. The thing (Rock thing) actually IS technically human, only mutated, but sure, that might throw him out of bounds. But Gimli? The hobbits? Characters where there are actively real-life people/Actors that are being called unattractive? C'mon...
(And Rorschach was at the very least in the second or third set of characters as well, just never commented on)

Spoiler: image, in case anyone wants to judge for themselves

Show

I suppose attractiveness is always subjective. The text does confirm that the caracter is at least intended to be unattracitve. I thinkshe is as unttractive as any of the men identified by mendicant (all of whom are either muscular or slim, so have good bodies like Ayane, even if their faces are open to interpretation).

Whether she is sexualised, or her outfit is bogus is a different point to whether sheis attractive or not. If your point is about sexualisation of women, instead of whether women are sometimes depicted as less than attractive, that is a seperate argument (which I think is also happening in this thread)..

Her description suggest hero to me - no negative points (apart from her appearance).

Rorschach is identifed as an "anit-hero" on wikipedia, and anti hero is defined as aprotagonist who lacks heoric qualities. I suggest that one of the heroic qualities he lacks is looks (like ayane). However, I think he qualifies and is probably the best example yet (it took four attempts). Thank you for identifying him.

Does the text confirm that? Where? As I said, the statement you quoted sets her apart from being attractive in the "cute" variety, but that is far from the only version in existance. Her being of the "hard, unyielding, cold beauty" (or, "harsh") variety does not stop her from being attractive.
She is, in any case, far, FAR from being similar to Rorschach in attractiveness; or any of the other characters. Sure, subjective and all, but come the **** on, unambiguously UGLY she ain't. (Also, fixed that link for you, you added a : at the end that was too much)

Since the thread is about depiction of female clothing first and foremost, and depiction of female characters in general as a tangent, I thought it was relevant to the thread topic. For her being attractive, it is dubiously relevant, though characters intended to be ugly aren't generally sexualised; and if so, as a joke (see for example deadpool in Jean Grey's old uniform), which this really doesn't seem to be.

No problem for identifying Rorschach, though I must point out he was in at least one of the earlier bunches of pics before the last one as well. So no, not four tries ;)

[Max_Killjoy]

It's the same problem as when people say "It's *female character*'s choice to dress this way; why's it ok for women to dress like that irl but not in media?"; the characters aren't real people making their own decisions, they're characters in media with a creator and an audience.

And even if we take the "character's choice" thing as acceptable, what do we make of "choices" that are blatantly incongruous with the character and the situation and the context... but just "happen" to be highly sexualized?

[Ashiel]

It's the same problem as when people say "It's *female character*'s choice to dress this way; why's it ok for women to dress like that irl but not in media?"; the characters aren't real people making their own decisions, they're characters in media with a creator and an audience.

What is your point here? Elaborate, please.

[Floret]

What is your point here? Elaborate, please.

The point here (If I may, this is not a discussion being held for the first time) is that, no, it is not the character's decision to dress that way. It can't be, the character isn't real, she can't MAKE decisions, instead those are made FOR her, by the artists, developers, writers.
So if a team of artists decide a bunch of female characters to be dressed that way, it really isn't in any way equivalent to a woman dressing that way by her own choice - because the choice isn't made by the woman in question (That, again, cannot make one in the first place due to the whole "not existing" thing.)

[Ashiel]

The point here (If I may, this is not a discussion being held for the first time) is that, no, it is not the character's decision to dress that way. It can't be, the character isn't real, she can't MAKE decisions, instead those are made FOR her, by the artists, developers, writers.
So if a team of artists decide a bunch of female characters to be dressed that way, it really isn't in any way equivalent to a woman dressing that way by her own choice - because the choice isn't made by the woman in question (That, again, cannot make one in the first place due to the whole "not existing" thing.)

So what you're saying is it doesn't matter. Because it's not a real person.

Further, you must admit that the creation of the character, from physical design to personality is solely the discretion of the creator. Ergo, the creator deems that she does so by choice. So she does so by choice. In the same way that if the creator decides she is not above killing a bad guy, she is not above killing a bad guy. Or that she likes kittens, so she likes kittens. Nobody is subjecting any sort of being to something against their will. The fact that some women actively choose to dress in such ways in life only further demonstrates the problem with that idea, since you can't even say it's particularly unrealistic, aside from possibly making an argument that it is exaggerated - which art regularly does with the real.

[Liquor Box]

But the point is you often see males of "unattractive" "races" while females are often Elves or fairies or similar. As the audience is human, it is clear that females are still made to be attractive as their main characterisitc, while men can be attractive, strong, clever, a tragic misunderstood creature (hunchback from Notre dame) or any other number of things. People are not arguing that there shoul not be attractive female heroes. But that women should be treated just like men. That is if it makes sense for them to be attractive, by all means let them be. But when they are out adventrueing DO NOT have them where stilletto heels (invented in the 20th century by the way, they appear far too often in stories of the past).

Whether they have stilletto heels or not is partof a different argument altogehter.

Do you more often see protagonists from unattactive races, or are you just promoting Tolkien as being representative as what is usual (remembering that his medium is books, where we get no visual depictions of a characters beauty, it's only later works that visually represent his work).

In dnd 3.5 canon core, you get three charactes of the races perhaps percieved as unttracitve (Tordek the dwarf fighter, Nebin the ilussionist gnome and Lidda the halfling thief) and two characters of the races (outside human) you hint are attractive (soveliss the half elf ranger and Mialee the elf wizard). That split is relatively even, and if anything skewed toward the males more frequently belonging to the unatractive race. Of course 3.5 canon is only a single example, and I am happy to hear of other examples (that ar visual) tht depict femals as more frequently members of the beautiful races.

Yes the point stands out clearer for antagonist (the latest Bewulf movie is a good example:

Spoiler

Show

Male monster:

female monster:



complete with "stilletto heels"!

As I said to Max Killjoy, happy to discuss whether more female or male antagonists are attractive, so long as I know how you think it relates to the wider discussion. Because I can conceive of a person trying to argue either of the following from a feminist perspective:
- Female villians should not be unattractive (or at least not to a greater degree that unattractive female heroes) because that suggests that a woman who is unattractive is not someone who should be accepted.
- Female villians should be unattractive on at least some occassions to better reflect the fact that women come in lots of shapes, sizes and degree of attractiveness.

If we do discuss, a couple of indivual examples wont be sufficient. There are lots of villians (regardless of gender) who are depicted as unatrractive - so , imatch your beowulf with Cruella Deville

The second point is that famles are always (or at leats very frequently) "dressed" to be sexy, while the men are dressed to be competent at what they do!

I don't mind women in no clothing. If we have a culture where everyone fights nude, then both men and women should do so (instead media will often have women in something that looks like a bikini). If we have a culture where people fight in armour, then both men and women should wear armour (instead media will often have women in something that looks like a bikini). It shouldn't be that hard.

As noted in response to a previous poster - whether women are dressed provocatively relaitve to men is a different line of discussion than whether they are always attractive (as heroes) while men (as heroes) are allowed to be ugly (despite the evidence suggesting otherwise). If you want to have that discussion by all means do (I understand the counter-argument is the personification of a male in fantasy, Conan, who only wears a loin cloth), but please don't use it as a reply to the seperate line of discussion about whether male/female human heroes are sometimes depicted as ugly.

[Floret]

So what you're saying is it doesn't matter. Because it's not a real person.

Further, you must admit that the creation of the character, from physical design to personality is solely the discretion of the creator. Ergo, the creator deems that she does so by choice. So she does so by choice. In the same way that if the creator decides she is not above killing a bad guy, she is not above killing a bad guy. Or that she likes kittens, so she likes kittens. Nobody is subjecting any sort of being to something against their will. The fact that some women actively choose to dress in such ways in life only further demonstrates the problem with that idea, since you can't even say it's particularly unrealistic, aside from possibly making an argument that it is exaggerated - which art regularly does with the real.

...you are missing the point intentionally, aren't you?

No, what I am saying is that using in-universe justifications against out-of-universe criticism (Or, Watsonian justifications for Doylist cristicism, if we want to use precise and fancy terms) is irrelevant. I am saying that the argument that a character or a real women might "choose" to dress that way is wholly irrelevant to the discussion of a single piece of media; or at the very least not a very good argument to wholly deflect criticism of such depictions.
I am saying that a woman choosing to wear something skimpy on her own is not equivalent to someone else deciding a woman should wear something skimpy. Or, as is the case with many of the media under discussion, that many if not all of the women should wear something skimpy.

I am saying that the reason for such depiction can never just be "it fits the character" or "the character chose that", because those things don't matter, those are both made up. The real-life person that designed these things had a reason for making them that way, and it is THAT reason we need to look at in this regard; and THAT is what is being discussed.
Media is only relevant through it's real-life ties; both in reception and in creation.

[kraftcheese]

So what you're saying is it doesn't matter. Because it's not a real person.

Further, you must admit that the creation of the character, from physical design to personality is solely the discretion of the creator. Ergo, the creator deems that she does so by choice. So she does so by choice. In the same way that if the creator decides she is not above killing a bad guy, she is not above killing a bad guy. Or that she likes kittens, so she likes kittens. Nobody is subjecting any sort of being to something against their will. The fact that some women actively choose to dress in such ways in life only further demonstrates the problem with that idea, since you can't even say it's particularly unrealistic, aside from possibly making an argument that it is exaggerated - which art regularly does with the real.

I was saying the in-story reasoning behind something doesn't negate the fact that someone created the piece of media; the character and their choices are written by someone with their own biases...it also means the piece of media isn't in a bubble away from societal implications and immune to criticism.

Feelin' like a broken record here folks.

[Liquor Box]

You keep trying to make this point, but it doesn't make sense; it doesn't matter whether the characters are attractive within the story, or to other hobbits, etc. because they're characters that have been created by human beings (or actors picked by humans) in media for consumption by humans.

It's the same problem as when people say "It's *female character*'s choice to dress this way; why's it ok for women to dress like that irl but not in media?"; the characters aren't real people making their own decisions, they're characters in media with a creator and an audience.

OK.

So would you accept one of the many animal characters, such as Nala from the Lion King or Judy Hopps from Zootopia, as an example of a female character whois not attractive (hopefully) to the intended human audience.

If you would, then at least you are being consistent. I disagree with you, because I think such characters are not portrayed as attractive to humans but instead as attractive to their own species. But at least you are not choosing one rule for male characters and another for female.

If you do think those two are examples of females who are not attractive (to humans) then we have an additional decent handful of both female and male protaonists who are not attractive (to humans).

[kraftcheese]

OK.

So would you accept one of the many animal characters, such as Nala from the Lion King or Judy Hopps from Zootopia, as an example of a female character whois not attractive (hopefully) to the intended human audience.

If you would, then at least you are being consistent. I disagree with you, because I think such characters are not portrayed as attractive to humans but instead as attractive to their own species. But at least you are not choosing one rule for male characters and another for female.

If you do think those two are examples of females who are not attractive (to humans) then we have an additional decent handful of both female and male protaonists who are not attractive (to humans).

I do accept that, but my point wasn't that there are no unattractive female characters in media, just that there is a disparity of attractiveness between male and female characters.

[Satinavian]

...you are missing the point intentionally, aren't you?

No, what I am saying is that using in-universe justifications against out-of-universe criticism (Or, Watsonian justifications for Doylist cristicism, if we want to use precise and fancy terms) is irrelevant. I am saying that the argument that a character or a real women might "choose" to dress that way is wholly irrelevant to the discussion of a single piece of media; or at the very least not a very good argument to wholly deflect criticism of such depictions.
I am saying that a woman choosing to wear something skimpy on her own is not equivalent to someone else deciding a woman should wear something skimpy. Or, as is the case with many of the media under discussion, that many if not all of the women should wear something skimpy.

I am saying that the reason for such depiction can never just be "it fits the character" or "the character chose that", because those things don't matter, those are both made up. The real-life person that designed these things had a reason for making them that way, and it is THAT reason we need to look at in this regard; and THAT is what is being discussed.
Media is only relevant through it's real-life ties; both in reception and in creation.

So notthing any of your RPG-character wears does fit his or her character because such a thing as "fitting a fictional character" can't exist ?

Sorry, that must be grating for anyone valueing versimilitude in fiction. And it gets even more stupid considering legacy characters and decades of franchises where artists now are not the ones who made the decisions that work as constraints.


Yes, it is often used as a shallow excuse, but that does not invalidate the concept.

I mean, this whole thread started about realistic, believable armor. And now you are saying it is irrelevant, what the fictional characters in question actually would wear ?

[Keltest]

I do accept that, but my point wasn't that there are no unattractive female characters in media, just that there is a disparity of attractiveness between male and female characters.

Also, from my occasional glimpses into the darker corners of the internet, I am not entirely certain that people don't consider them attractive.

[Liquor Box]

Well, it wasn't specified, but really, looking at what is being discussed and in this forum? It was what was being talked about.
The fact argued wasn't "there are loads of them" but "there are some, while there are pretty much no female variants". Noone claimed ugly heroes to be in any way near the majority.

Discussed on this forum as in only those genres are discussed on the wider forum? I don't think so.

Or do you mean only in this thread.

Sorry, if you think that there was some implicit or implied genre restriction that means that only those genres were being discussed, you are going to have to provide a little more.

As for "not unattractive by the standards of their own species"... That doesn't MATTER. Because that is made up. The viewers aren't of that species. We all aren't of that species, that species does not exist, their culture, their spectrums of attraction do all not exist. Someone made that up, and invented the rules; but real-life reception of these doesn't work by those rules. It works by the rules of attraction of real-life human people. What a made-up culture thinks is attractive is wholly constructed, and irrelevant to the discussion of real-life media depictions and their impact.
I, as a human, real person, am not judging the attractiveness of Twi'lek by their own societies standards, but by real-life human standards, just as any one of us does (Likewise with dwarves, hobbits, elves, orcs, etc.). The sexualised Asari of Mass Effect aren't sexualised because of their own culture, they are sexualised by a human being that drew them to be attractive to human beings, wholly unrelated to any cultural beauty standards that same (or any other person) made up for the corresponding culture. The impact of sexualisation is not due to them being attractive by those made-up standards, but due to them being attractive by real-world ones.

Ok. by that standard the overwhelming majority (and I think to many people all) non-human creatures are unattractive. Twi'lek is unattractive (pic below for those who are interested).

Spoiler: Twi'let

Show

As I said to kraftcheese above, if that is your logic you would have to accept that there are many unatractive (to humans) female characters out there - including nearly every character who is an animal (which are lots).

And I find the argument to be somewhat in bad faith, at least. I mean, seriously, to take "human" so literally as to completely exclude and disregard even the most human-looking humanoids is really, really stretching believability as to being anything more than an arbitrary criteria to exclude given examples. Crash bandicoot (The fox guy)? Yeah, that one doesn't count. The thing (Rock thing) actually IS technically human, only mutated, but sure, that might throw him out of bounds. But Gimli? The hobbits? Characters where there are actively real-life people/Actors that are being called unattractive? C'mon...

why is it so hard to come up with human examples of ugly heroic characters? I mean there are thousands of human characters even with the fantasy/scifi/superhero genres (which you think are the relevant ones) alone. That it is so hard to come up with examples of human male characters who are ugle suggests that there are very few of them.

As for the hobbits, are they really so ugly? You may think so, but a google search referencing Frodo suggests that many think otherwise.

Does the text confirm that? Where? As I said, the statement you quoted sets her apart from being attractive in the "cute" variety, but that is far from the only version in existance. Her being of the "hard, unyielding, cold beauty" (or, "harsh") variety does not stop her from being attractive.
She is, in any case, far, FAR from being similar to Rorschach in attractiveness; or any of the other characters. Sure, subjective and all, but come the **** on, unambiguously UGLY she ain't. (Also, fixed that link for you, you added a : at the end that was too much)

The text explicitly identifes her appearance as harsh as well as identifying her as being apart from cute. She is also featured on TV tropes as having "A face of a thug" - which is the same trope that characterises Rorscharch' appearance.

I am not sure how much further i can go with you on her appearance. She appears unattractive to me. Her character page describes her (clearly on my interpretation) as unattractive and the TV tropes page gives her the unattractive reference. If you disagree I think we can only put that down to a subjective diffuerence of opinion.

Thanks for fixing the link.

Since the thread is about depiction of female clothing first and foremost, and depiction of female characters in general as a tangent, I thought it was relevant to the thread topic. For her being attractive, it is dubiously relevant, though characters intended to be ugly aren't generally sexualised; and if so, as a joke (see for example deadpool in Jean Grey's old uniform), which this really doesn't seem to be.

Yep,relevant to the thread topic, and relevant to another strain of the conversation I see ongoing (I think the counter-example presented is Conan, who is usually depicted in fur briefs only). But noth relevant to this strain of the conversation - and characters depcited as ugly (but with good bodies) are frequently shown in revealng clothing - see the Juggernaut (X-men) example raised earlier.

No problem for identifying Rorschach, though I must point out he was in at least one of the earlier bunches of pics before the last one as well. So no, not four tries ;)

Yep, fair call, I found him in the third, so three tries and probably twently pics.

[kraftcheese]

Also, from my occasional glimpses into the darker corners of the internet, I am not entirely certain that people don't consider them attractive.

Yeah...I didn't really feel like mentioning that but yeah, I've got a sneaking suspicion that the designs of most "funny animal" women are influenced by a/multiple furrys' attractions.

[Liquor Box]

I do accept that, but my point wasn't that there are no unattractive female characters in media, just that there is a disparity of attractiveness between male and female characters.

Ok. But the disparity does not seem to exist (or at least not to any great extent) with respect to human hero characters.

So you rely entirely on non-human depictions of male animals/non-humans as being unattractive and animal/non-human females as being attractive to make your point about disparity?

[Max_Killjoy]

So interesting observation related to where this topic has gone... I'm trying to find reference art for an NPC I'm writing up for someone else's project, and in doing so, I've been reminded that image searches including anything about skin tone or face shape will pull up over 90% makeup tips...

[1337 b4k4]

A) A male character that looks and behaves in a way to appeal to women who want to be with him (I say women, largely because if this happens, it mostly is about straight women's tastes, that might overlap with bi women's tastes, but tends to differ from gay/bi men's tastes.). A character that exemplifies what culture connotates with what women find attractive in men. A character that is primarily goodlooking, designed to be ogled, one that makes you feel good while looking at him, and imagining being with him.
B) A male character that looks (or plays) in a way to appeal to men who want to be (like) him. A character that exemplifies what culture connotates with the epitome of manlyness. A character that is strong, capable, and quite possibly looks like what men think women find attractive, one that makes you feel some of those (especially strong) while playing him or imagining to be him.

And C? Because right now A and B have so much overlap as to be useless, unless you're seriously arguing that men don't want to "look and behave in a way to appeal to women who want to be with him" or "exemplifies what culture connotates with what women find attractive in men" or alternatively arguing that those things (attractive and appealing to women that want to be with him) are not "muscled (or at least well toned) and competent"

I mean about the only difference between your A and B definitions is that B includes "being strong", and given that in this discussion if a male character meets the B definition, they don't count as sexualized, then by that same logic applied equally to both sexes, any female character that:

"looks (or plays) in a way to appeal to women who want to be (like) her. A character that exemplifies what culture connotates with the epitome of womanlyness. A character that is strong, capable, and quite possibly looks like what women think men find attractive, one that makes you feel some of those (especially strong) while playing her or imagining to be her."

is also not sexualized. Which given the female fanbase for some traditionally "sexualized" characters (e.g. Lara Croft, whose games at least in my experience have been vastly more popular with my female friends than with my male friends) turns this whole discussion on its head. Since I presume that these are not the arguments you intend to make, again I will ask for a definition of a male character that can satisfy the A definition while not overlapping with the B definition. Or to make things easier (and probably more realistic), a definition for A and B that even if slightly overlapping:
A) if applied to a given male character you would agree that said character is "overtly" or otherwise badly (per the general definitions used here for female characters) sexualized
and
B) if gender swapped and applied to a "sexualized" female character would encompass all of that character

Edit
-----------

Also I'm calling foul on your comparisons of mens and women's depictions of Hugh Jackman. Your cherry picked extreme examples, and specifically ignored the context that the mens image is on a magazine specifically about building muscle. Here are some alternate men's magazine treatments:

Spoiler: GQ

Show

Men's Fitness

Spoiler: Men's Journal

Show

Spoiler: Men's Health

Show

And an alternate Women's Mag cover for balance the other way:

Spoiler: Women's Day

Show

[Floret]

So notthing any of your RPG-character wears does fit his or her character because such a thing as "fitting a fictional character" can't exist ?

Sorry, that must be grating for anyone valueing versimilitude in fiction. And it gets even more stupid considering legacy characters and decades of franchises where artists now are not the ones who made the decisions that work as constraints.

Yes, it is often used as a shallow excuse, but that does not invalidate the concept.

I mean, this whole thread started about realistic, believable armor. And now you are saying it is irrelevant, what the fictional characters in question actually would wear ?

Of course not. They wear things that fit their character - I take great care to do so (Most of my current player characters (due to constant GMing in TTRPGs are for Larp, so maybe even deeper care than some other people; since I do actually have to consider "Is this practical/possible to wear for days, possibly in any number of weather conditions" as a very real criteria).
But they didn't decide these things for themselves. Sure, the things fit them, but that is purely because I designed the characters in a way that would fit with such clothes - and, sure, while adding to the wardrobe also spent a thought on "would this fit with the character". Or, rather "Does this fit my image of the character and the way I want this character to be".
"It's what my character would do" is quite often called out as a rather irrelevant rationalisation ******* over the group - you designed your character that way, and it is not an excuse. Just as I am still responsible for every action my character takes, I am still responsible for how characters I designed are dressed.

The decision for how to portray characters in fiction is solely on the humans portraying them; not the characters themselves. They might take care to consider the versimilitude and logic of the situation, think about what a person with the way they see their character's personality would wear in such a situation; and I greatly laud them for doing this - it creates more engaging and consistent art. But that is thinking about your decisions as a creator, not the character deciding anything.
So, I am not saying it is irrelevant what the fictional character would wear - not for the creation of enjoyable, consitent and (if you consider this a sign of it, which I would) quality art. I AM saying it is pretty irrelevant in regards to discussing whether or not the art is sexist/objectifying etc. It can make sense for a character to be dressed in revealing or sexualised clothing, but the reason for it has to go beyond just "the character would wear such a thing".

Ok. by that standard the overwhelming majority (and I think to many people all) non-human creatures are unattractive. Twi'lek is unattractive (pic below for those who are interested).

Spoiler: Twi'let

Show

As I said to kraftcheese above, if that is your logic you would have to accept that there are many unatractive (to humans) female characters out there - including nearly every character who is an animal (which are lots).

Yes. I accept that fact. I for one am not actually discussing the existence of things, or even the raw numbers, though. I am mostly discussing proportionate numbers. And if the ratio of male animal characters to male characters and female animal characters to female characters is roughly similar (Which someone would have to test, but I think it probably is; I have not found men to be more likely to be depicted as animals beyond the standard fact that male characters are more likely to exist, period.
So if this chunk is irrelevant to differentiating the ratios, we are left with the vaguely humanoid characters. (I would consider also throwing out robots, but then again all too often male robots are just machine-looking while female-coded ones end up being fembots - EDI from Mass Effect, posted above, for example, or the Watchknights from guild wars. Why do those robots have boobs, exactly? Or Aliens, but then again there is somehow a tendency to have female aliens be more likely to fall under the possible spectrum of attraction than male ones (For example, the aforementioned twi'lek)) And, amongst them, there IS a disparity.
This disparity is the problem. Not that there are no ugly/unattractive female characters; or many ugly male ones, but that there are, in equivalent situations (where theoretically attraction is possible) disproportionately more unattractive men then women. And that this disparity, since it falls along gender lines, might quite possibly be sexist.

(As for the question posed in another post of yours on what would be more feminist: I take answer c) Have female villains be unattractive, because humans and women can be that way, but at a similar rate to the heroes, as to show that there is no relation between prettiness and goodness, no matter how much culture often tries to say otherwise.)

The text explicitly identifes her appearance as harsh as well as identifying her as being apart from cute. She is also featured on TV tropes as having "A face of a thug" - which is the same trope that characterises Rorscharch' appearance.

I am not sure how much further i can go with you on her appearance. She appears unattractive to me. Her character page describes her (clearly on my interpretation) as unattractive and the TV tropes page gives her the unattractive reference. If you disagree I think we can only put that down to a subjective diffuerence of opinion.

Thanks for fixing the link.

Appearantly, looking back, fixing the link did nothing, sorry for misleading you. Maybe it still being the result of a google search throws a wrench in the gears?

As I have said, "harsh" does not mean "unattractive" in any sense, and "cute" is, while certainly a subterm of "attractive", not synoymous with it.
As for that trope?
I think this quote from the page on it might be relevant:

Please note that it doesn't necessarily mean "ugly", even though most of the examples below are. It's more about looking threatening than actually looking bad, and it's possible to look both handsome and fearsome.

And then, in the examples section has this to say on how the character fits this trope:

MMA fighter "Mistress" Ayane in Gold Digger would love to be a Face; unfortunately, she has the coldest, cruelest eyes on the planet and a wicked smile to boot.

"Cruel eyes" aren't exactly synonymous with "ugly" in my book. Still not convinced. Maybe I am just into (physically) strong and dominant women. *shrug*
Anyone else with an opinion on this character's looks to break the tie?

Yep,relevant to the thread topic, and relevant to another strain of the conversation I see ongoing (I think the counter-example presented is Conan, who is usually depicted in fur briefs only). But noth relevant to this strain of the conversation - and characters depcited as ugly (but with good bodies) are frequently shown in revealng clothing - see the Juggernaut (X-men) example raised earlier.

Yep, fair call, I found him in the third, so three tries and probably twently pics.

Revealing clothing =/= sexualisation, the thread has been over this.

Ok. But the disparity does not seem to exist (or at least not to any great extent) with respect to human hero characters.

So you rely entirely on non-human depictions of male animals/non-humans as being unattractive and animal/non-human females as being attractive to make your point about disparity?

The claim that such a disparity does not exist is not something that has been sufficiently proven - there have been unambiguous examples of one, but none of the other. And no matter how big, the fact that it exists at all is kind of the point. The fact that animal/non-human characters are more likely to be created in such a way as to be attractive to humans than male ones, is part of the point, and not something that can be dismissed as tangential.

And C? Because right now A and B have so much overlap as to be useless, unless you're seriously arguing that men don't want to "look and behave in a way to appeal to women who want to be with him" or "exemplifies what culture connotates with what women find attractive in men" or alternatively arguing that those things (attractive and appealing to women that want to be with him) are not "muscled (or at least well toned) and competent"

I mean about the only difference between your A and B definitions is that B includes "being strong", and given that in this discussion if a male character meets the B definition, they don't count as sexualized, then by that same logic applied equally to both sexes, any female character that:

"looks (or plays) in a way to appeal to women who want to be (like) her. A character that exemplifies what culture connotates with the epitome of womanlyness. A character that is strong, capable, and quite possibly looks like what women think men find attractive, one that makes you feel some of those (especially strong) while playing her or imagining to be her."

is also not sexualized. Which given the female fanbase for some traditionally "sexualized" characters (e.g. Lara Croft, whose games at least in my experience have been vastly more popular with my female friends than with my male friends) turns this whole discussion on its head. Since I presume that these are not the arguments you intend to make, again I will ask for a definition of a male character that can satisfy the A definition while not overlapping with the B definition. Or to make things easier (and probably more realistic), a definition for A and B that even if slightly overlapping:
A) if applied to a given male character you would agree that said character is "overtly" or otherwise badly (per the general definitions used here for female characters) sexualized
and
B) if gender swapped and applied to a "sexualized" female character would encompass all of that character

It is possible for these to be overlapping, yes.
As for more detailed answers: One difference is the focus. Is the focus primarily on looking good (A), or on being strong (B)?
The second difference is in the detail of "What men think women find attractive" and "What women find attractive" being two categories with overlap, but not synonymous. The two depictions of Hugh Jackman were intended to exemplify that. Or maybe this comic that had been linked already far earlier in this thread. Men like to think women care as much about them being insanely muscled badasses, but... the depiction of pure muscle, as for example on Conan or Kratos (very naked men) isn't as generally attractive to women, for example, as the also depicted nice cleavage and thin waistline on women to men.

As for that equivalence... Yeah, I would probably not count that character as sexualised. Or, maybe I would - see, the problem is, "womanlyness" and "manlyness" have very, very different connotations (Some of them disquialify a "strong, capable" character that makes you feel strong as being the epitome of "womanlyness"). What has been constructed as gender roles has men as acting, women as reacting party. So a man fullfilling all the things society says men should be is an active person; a woman... looks pretty and waits for the man. Maybe cooks for him.

Lara Croft is a curious example. Because, really, especially in the most recent games, I really, really wouldn't call her sexualised. Even in the old ones, "reasonable shorts and Tanktops" is at the rather low end of "sexy" clothes. Sure, there are some midriff-baring outfits here and there, but in general, the culture surrounding it sexualised Lara Croft far more than the games ever did (I don't count giant breast as sexualisation).

Maybe trying this...
A sexualised male character will be designed in such a way that the outfit overemphasises the character's attractiveness at the cost of situational/versimilitudinal logic; more than the equivalent female characters. Focusses on the characters sexual characteristics and physical desirability (In a broad sense; butt, bulge in the pants and a toned figure or attractive/pretty face are things that I would count here) over their other attributes and skills.

As for the depictions of Hugh Jackman - I had taken them from an older post from someone else that I had saved up; not searched for them myself. I admit the mistake in that. Still, it stands that the most muscle-focussed, posing image is not presented as "what women want" but "what men want". From looking over a complete google search, the disparity is clearly way overexxagerated in the two I had picked originally, but, what in my perception still remains: The covers on men's magazines, on average, tend to focus on his muscles more than the covers of women's magazines.
Or, on a larger point, which is why I went back to that other post in the first place "Being muscular" is a trait that women do tend to find attractive in men; but which's importance and centrality for attraction is overexxagerated in what men tend to think women find attractive.