Do you understand what a feminist is?Oh woah there you had me worried for a moment! I thought you were going to describe your character being a rapist, pedo or at least a crazy alcoholic. When you said racy, you had me braced for the absolute worst. Honestly any character can have problems with certain tables, some in some tables more than others.
That said, you'd be hard pressed to offend anyone with that picture you found even when edited. The only people I think that would be uncomfortable would be feminists or SUPREMELY conservative people. I describe them as supremely conservative, because I consider myself reasonably conservative. (Heading left down that scale.)
Though really, I would think a lot of feminists would not like RPGs for many reasons. And supremely conservative types would also not like RPGs for many reasons. Because of this, both are unlikely to be in your game.
If someone does bring it up and be like "really? Skin showing character?" Just tell him/her what you told us, you searched the whole web for this pic and even edited it to make it more modest. And if he/she is still raw about it, then well, come back to us?
I'm actually more concerned that you might have a PC in the party that tries to woo your PC. In all reality I think it's more likely that a bard would try to go for it. And that is a slippery slope to make you feel uncomfortable, unless you're cool with that.
Or bash his face in. An easy choice for most.
Well, I know what the stereotype of a feminist is I gess. I don't mean to offend anyone. I'll be willing to listen to what you'd have to say that one is. I enjoyed your posts in this topic so far so why not?
If not, I'll check out a definition on Google then.
To break it down, very simply, feminism is believe in equality amongst the sexes, in all aspects of life, that such equality can apply.
I am a feminist.
Do you believe in equality amongst the sexes?
If so, then you are a feminist too.
Feminism seems an unfitting name if that's what it's all about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To break it down, very simply, feminism is believe in equality amongst the sexes, in all aspects of life, that such equality can apply.
I am a feminist.
Do you believe in equality amongst the sexes?
If so, then you are a feminist too.
I don't like that term, never have, but I am an equalist, fairist, or peoplist whatever you want to call it. I feel that "feminist" get's too embroiled in stigma that it closes off minds that actually might agree with your point. This is also the same for men's rights and mgtow, don't like those either mainly because of the one sided stigma.
The original, here, is SFW.
I think most workplaces look down on cam-toe like that.
Go ahead, look at this, and this picture.
Both are wearing the same outfit.
Still, I bet you view one as more "appropriate" than the other.
Yeah, again, it's because of the cam-toe that is extra ridiculous, given the fabric/fur. They didn't draw a bulge in He-man's fur.
Ah so it's more of a broad definition if you look it up. Got it, thanks for not being condescending or anything and clearing that up. I guess the word itself just has a lot of social baggage that comes with it. So people think many differing things when feminism is brought up.
Never thought of myself as being a feminist, but if that is the definition then I guess I am. Ironic actually, I was called a mannist once. That was unfortunate, but there are worse insults that can be thrown at you.
I think I need to clarify, since there's some misunderstanding going on.
Here's the order of events:
1. I found an already edited oni image, complete with armour.
2. I palette-swapped it to be a blue oni.
3. I posted here.
4. I found the original unedited image through reverse image search.
I was wholly unaware of the Dmitrys original when I made the first post.
|
I think I need to clarify, since there's some misunderstanding going on.
Here's the order of events:
1. I found an already edited oni image, complete with armour.
2. I palette-swapped it to be a blue oni.
3. I posted here.
4. I found the original unedited image through reverse image search.
I was wholly unaware of the Dmitrys original when I made the first post.
It's fine pic.
It sort of reminds me of female MMA fighters.
Exposed midriff is common in MMA.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My personal opinion is that the picture is actually really good except for one detail. The bra part clashes really badly with the rest of her outfit. It seems to be made out of an entirely different material and doesn't seem like it belongs with the implied culture that would produce the rest of the clothing.
Actually, I don't see why something like the outfits of MMA fighters, wouldn't be extremely fitting.
Those are real world fighting women.
That really depends on the class. Weird for a Cavalier, not weird for a Barbarian, Brawler or Monk. At least as far as martials go.
|
|
I should address your original concerns, before anything else continues.
To do so, I would need to ask a view questions:
1) What is the venue of the local game?
2) How would you describe the local social norms and customs?
3) Do you know the people you are gaming with, and if so, what are they like?
4) How would you describe the economic environment of the area?
5) What is the estimated range of the ages of players?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That really depends on the class. Weird for a Cavalier, not weird for a Barbarian, Brawler or Monk. At least as far as martials go.Actually, I don't see why something like the outfits of MMA fighters, wouldn't be extremely fitting.
Those are real world fighting women.
A class does not define your character's dress, mannerisms, behavior, culture, or personal tastes.
A Paladin can wear nothing but a Hide Shirt, get constantly drunk, rarely bathe, and hit on everything.
Likewise, a Rogue could be a paragon of goodness, cleanliness, wear Fullplate, be deeply religious, and chaste.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would you cringe at seeing an oni-spawn tiefling looking like that in your Pathfinder game?
Not at all. Well, I would in the current gameworld I'm setting up, which has no tieflings, but that's a separate issue. ;)
What's racy for one group is perfectly acceptable for another and utterly revolting to a third. One game I was in had a topless centaur hiking around, nobody cared because we weren't in junior high anymore.
I'd imagine that the appearance of female MMA fighters could be a little controversial in some circles since the fighters who are more likely to be generally accepted as pretty or sexy tend to be more popular. I don't think that the exposed midriff of their outfits is controversial though. Being able to move around when you're fighting seems like a practical matter.
I wonder if a good standard for judging whether PC art might be offensive would be to ask whether it would make folks at the game uncomfortable if some showed up dressed that way at a Halloween party. Of course the answer might depend largely on who is at the party, but in general a Halloween party would have more lax standards for appearance and costume than say a regular day at a business casual office. A guy with no pants might get kicked out of either environment. One with a fur loincloth and no shirt would probably be OK at most Halloween parties.
Regarding the blue oni picture which was originally posted by the OP, I think it should only offend people who feel that fit, attractive women are somehow offensive...or maybe those offended by oni...
Original Red Oni Image: You'd likely make a few players at my table, and myself, uncomfortable. Bandits would also take bets on who could hit certain internal organs because that armor can't be giving more that +2 AC.
Edited Blue Oni Image: Likely no complaints at all from my players or myself. Bandits however would still likely shout out "Bullseye!" if they hit that character's belly button.
As a litmus to my group's level of prudishness, one of the PCs tried to get into bed with a general they had just met.
Artwork for RPG characters does sometimes fail to include "reasonable" armor. In the case of D&D/Pathfinder there's often a bunch of other missing gear which "should" be there too though. A lot of character portraits and miniatures seem to lack the cloaks, headbands, goggles, etc that many PCs wear. Even the art which includes those often leaves off stuff like a bulky backpack. I sometimes think that Pathfinder adventurers fully decked out in magic items and carrying bunches of loot might look pretty goofy.
Artwork for RPG characters does sometimes fail to include "reasonable" armor. In the case of D&D/Pathfinder there's often a bunch of other missing gear which "should" be there too though. A lot of character portraits and miniatures seem to lack the cloaks, headbands, goggles, etc that many PCs wear. Even the art which includes those often leaves off stuff like a bulky backpack. I sometimes think that Pathfinder adventurers fully decked out in magic items and carrying bunches of loot might look pretty goofy.
I'm 100% sure of it.
Just a Crown of Charisma and a pair of goggles makes you look goofy, so would wearing a cloak and a robe (I think that's legal).
mplindustries was the first to address the proverbial 800 lb camel in the room that made the original "caucasian" oni NSFW, but beyond work-safe i'll state that every one of them looks ridiculous to me, he-mans and she-mans and Conans included, because only idiots go to fight with that little defensive attire. Hell, even monks are probably wearing some magical jewelry that aids defense and the "barbarians" depicted aren't even wearing that much. The least silly was at least the original poster's blue oni, so Umbral Reaver to answer your question I think you're good to go. :-)
mplindustries was the first to address the proverbial 800 lb camel in the room that made the original "caucasian" oni NSFW, but beyond work-safe i'll state that every one of them looks ridiculous to me, he-mans and she-mans and Conans included, because only idiots go to fight with that little defensive attire. Hell, even monks are probably wearing some magical jewelry that aids defense and the "barbarians" depicted aren't even wearing that much. The least silly was at least the original poster's blue oni, so Umbral Reaver to answer your question I think you're good to go. :-)
History and the Celts would like to have a word with you.
The Celts would paint themselves blue and going into battle naked as the day they came into the world, having only weapon and shield, howling and shrieking at the enemy.
It was an intimidation tactic. They also thought that dirty clothing coming in contact with wounds would cause infection.
Now it wasn't incredible common, and it obviously provided less protection. But people still did it.
The Unearthed Arcana Class Defense rules are a wonderful thing.
That really depends on the class. Weird for a Cavalier, not weird for a Barbarian, Brawler or Monk. At least as far as martials go.Actually, I don't see why something like the outfits of MMA fighters, wouldn't be extremely fitting.
Those are real world fighting women.
A class does not define your character's dress, mannerisms, behavior, culture, or personal tastes.
A Paladin can wear nothing but a Hide Shirt, get constantly drunk, rarely bathe, and hit on everything.
Likewise, a Rogue could be a paragon of goodness, cleanliness, wear Fullplate, be deeply religious, and chaste.
While true that's not what I was addressing. I was answering why we don't see more MMA-type outfits on characters not whether or not those assumptions made sense or have any real bearing on what you can can do with your own character.
In the case of Monk they specifically lose abilities in armor so it's not unusual because shirtless face puncher is in your class features. To some extent the same goes for Brawler but it could go either way.
In the case of Barbarian its just outright perceived tropes. I've never seen a non-skimpy barbarian at a table whether male of female despite being automatically proficient in medium armor. Its to the point of where it's weird that 'medium armor' isn't depicted as a loincloth. Kind of like Inquisitors and hats and sorcerers wearing half a yard of clothing. In the case of Cavalier it seems odd to go armor-less for similar reasons.
I'm not saying going off the tropes is impossible, I ran a Magus who literally had less AC if he put on any armor the party had so just went shirtless. I'm pretty sure that the iconic Magus has less and less clothing each time I see him until he went mythic and lost his shirt completely because he's a dex magus.
The strangest part is that I wasn't particularly concerned with the bare abdomen.
I was wondering if the unreasonable size of her breasts pushed the image over the line from fantasy art to softcore fetish art.
Also, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at everyone calling the character a barbarian. I'm actually making a strength-based, two-handed weapon inquisitor! :P
Actually, I did this once. If you take the Use Large Weapons variant tiefling ability, you can use a 2handed large weapon for additional badassery AND break what should be physically possible! :D
I actually did that for an Oni-Spawn inquisitor of Sarenrae, though I made him male and had for flavor every inch of his skin covered in tattoos of Sarenrae's holy scriptures. Every inch... and he wore bracers of armor instead of actual armor and all he wore was a simple battle skirt and anklebands. He even went barefoot since he had natural armor and didn't have to worry about stepping on stuff. He had a very oni feel to him. I loved it.
Part of your character look defines their idea of style, and therefore tells something of your character. That said, I think that her breasts are large, but not unreasonable considering her body proportions and strength. I've seen female body builders with a similar look... though they usually had implants. Yay fantasy?
Overall I think it's suggestive but ultimately the thing I would say you'd worry about is being asked what the heck she was while at work. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The strangest part is that I wasn't particularly concerned with the bare abdomen.
I was wondering if the unreasonable size of her breasts pushed the image over the line from fantasy art to softcore fetish art.
Also, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at everyone calling the character a barbarian. I'm actually making a strength-based, two-handed weapon inquisitor! :P
Actually, I did this once. If you take the Use Large Weapons variant tiefling ability, you can use a 2handed large weapon for additional badassery AND break what should be physically possible! :D
I actually did that for an Oni-Spawn inquisitor of Sarenrae, though[...]
I have an oni-spawn fighter who does the same :D Large sized tetsubo for pure flavour. And oni-spawn is especially perfect for that variant ability because of that wonderful Superior Clutch trait of theirs.
|
Yay Inquisitor! =D also, your character isn't racy. Although her breasts are large, there are people with ridiculously large breasts in existence(they tend to get breast reduction to help their back, but the only cure I could think of in Pathfinder is having a floating disk or maybe muleback cords or something to assist with it. Then again she is buff as hell, so she can probably handle it.)
I'll just chime in here and say that it most certainly is not racey in any way unless the people looking at it are really prudish, but then again if that were the case they probably avoid the beaches as I've seen people wear less than that and I live in England. Prude country or prudes, or at least our attitude is sometimes. Mostly in upper society.
Without repeating Blackbloodtroll's comments, I see no issue with this picture as there are FAR more fleshy images that could've been chosen and it didn't look too fetishy, apart from the original. The only thing I thought it could've been seen that way is the character has large breasts, but really, that's not something to get bent out of shape considering comics from the 90s and anime from...now. I'd only agree if it was if it was basically the same as the origonal picture AND there was unneeded detail of nipples pushing against the fabric as if it's about to burst and below where it would look like she was getting a Wedgie.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the days of swords and spears, un armored combatants were far more common than armored ones.
Mostly because the warriors couldn't afford or didn't have access to armor,
What about ship borne combat?
What armor do you see sword fighters in pirate movies wear?
Opps. the whole "naked barbarian" trope is far more accurate than you think.
Aside from lance or bow, what was the most common way for a knight to die in battle?
Flailing about on his back, overweighed in armor while commoners wiggled thin blades between the seams in his armor.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Armor was not that heavy. The 'you need help to put it on and a crane lift to get on a horse' thing is 100% pure bull.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, I'm writing her character sheet and stuff. She ends up being near seven feet tall. Most folks are going to get sore necks if she keeps insisting 'my eyes are up here'.
In the days of swords and spears, un armored combatants were far more common than armored ones.
Mostly because the warriors couldn't afford or didn't have access to armor,What about ship borne combat?
What armor do you see sword fighters in pirate movies wear?Opps. the whole "naked barbarian" trope is far more accurate than you think.
Aside from lance or bow, what was the most common way for a knight to die in battle?
Flailing about on his back, overweighed in armor while commoners wiggled thin blades between the seams in his armor.
The kind that makes the dude look pretty by showing off his chest. Or the kind that exposes her PG-13 skin because, again, pretty. Also, popular pirate movies focus on the period when gunpowder had rendered armor and fighting nobility mostly obsolete.
Priceline was a major effect throughout history, but that was among the people who tended to die a lot or get whatever armor they could steal as soon as there was a corpse to strip.
Armor was better whenever you could get it. Period.
Oh wait?
Are we getting realism peanut butter in our fantasy chocolate?
find me some RL historical documentation where pirates wore armor?
Also black powder firearms DID NOT penetrate breast plate…thats why conquistadores still wore breast plates and helms.
Multiple modern tests have disproved the theory that hand held firearms ushered in the end of metal armor.
It's simply not true.
Armor became unpopular for combat BEFORE widespread firearms.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the days of swords and spears, un armored combatants were far more common than armored ones.
Mostly because the warriors couldn't afford or didn't have access to armor,What about ship borne combat?
What armor do you see sword fighters in pirate movies wear?Opps. the whole "naked barbarian" trope is far more accurate than you think.
Aside from lance or bow, what was the most common way for a knight to die in battle?
Flailing about on his back, overweighed in armor while commoners wiggled thin blades between the seams in his armor.
Well, certainly, going nude in battle was often a good idea if you could not afford armor, since the bits of cloth that got caught in your wound could lead to infection... which was not pleasant before penicillin came about...
Still, there is a difference between sexy clothes and nude, and often sexy clothes can be worse since they are 'presenting'. I am going to leave a NSFW link right :here This kind of highlights the comparison between the styles. One looks like she is being paid by the hour to stand there, the other looks like she will rip your darn head off if you try to take pictures (maybe that is who that guy is)
Also...no historical armor was fairly mobile. A pain on the back, but still warriors were trained to handle it, and they could climb ladders and do jumping jacks (....and video game style combat rolls), even with later plate armor. Look at this video
The video also shows how medieval fights were often fought. If knights were not using long, powerful, heavy spears (often ones like lucrene hammers, which had a spike that could be best described as a 'can opener'. I think the first guy in the video has one, but I am not an expert on weapons), they would try to get a blade into the gaps of the armor (under the arm, through the visor, etc). This is the reason why long swords are straight- they were meant to stab into the weak parts of the armors of their day.
So yes, you are correct on the cause of death, but knights were well aware of that problem. It is why warriors are usually skilled in both armed and unarmed combat (and grappling), unlike what games and movies show you. So why would knights use armor that left them as vulnerable as tipped cows?
|
Aside from lance or bow, what was the most common way for a knight to die in battle?
Flailing about on his back, overweighed in armor while commoners wiggled thin blades between the seams in his armor.
I know of one historical example of something like that happening, it was during the Third Servile War when the Romans encountered a group of fully armored gladiators whom they could not effectively harm with their primary or secondary weapons, so they used tent poles to shove them over and trenching mattocks to puncture the armor. This was also over 2000 years ago in the Iron Age when a fully armored combatant was almost unheard of.
As time and technology progressed, armor got better and better. By the time thing like what Pathfinder considers to be full plate and half plate armor were being produced the people wearing it were ridiculously hard to kill. They had to start developing special pole arms and ranged weapons like heavy crossbows, bed de corbins, halberss, pollaxes, and firearms to outright kill the guys inside of it. The only reason the armor was not more common was because it was expensive and took hundreds of man hors to build and form. And it is a Hollywood myth that people in full plate were not mobile and quick. There is a video floating around on YouTube of a guy in the SCA disproving this myth by doing pushups, somersaults, and sprinting to prove exactly that.
|
Showing skin and being sexual aren't the same thing. The lady might not be wearing much but she isn't flaunting her assets either, I'd argue the PF magus Iconic Seltyiel is more sexual than the Oni picture, he's thrusting his chest out and his outfit is obviously to draw attention to his muscles. Your picture is of someone in little clothing yes but its not designed to be skimpy its just lighter clothing, the character seems relaxed rather than provocative.
Armor was not that heavy. The 'you need help to put it on and a crane lift to get on a horse' thing is 100% pure bull.
Really? it's not.
You ever see the TV show full metal jousting?
I met the guy who does that show live.
The armor IS heavy.
it is over 100 pounds in most cases (depending on size of the wearer)
and is not made or intended for freedom of movement or open combat.
It's purpose is to protect the rider in a heavy cavalry charge.
but get the knight unhorsed and fallen down and he's screwed.
I wore over 100 pounds of gear loading c-130s and could barely walk, was more like a penguin waddle, and most guys needed help up from a seated position, so I know what that feels like.
You are confusing the heavy plate with armor meant for open combat, which is much more akin to samurai armor in type and purpose (the wearing can jump and is semi flexible) which only weighs circa 55 pounds.
If someone had worn that in a cavalry charge, a footman's pike would impale them not bounce off or break.
During jousting the guy would be dead, not unhorsed.
and only the wealthy wet to battle wearing 55 pound armor.
most common soldiers were lucky to have shields… something a good longsword would make short work of in battle, because they were mostly made of wood.
your concept that everyone went to battle wearing armor is patently false, the image of armored warriors is about as rare as cowboys fighting with twin pistols. Did it happen? Occasionally, rarely, but was far from common.
Showing skin and being sexual aren't the same thing. The lady might not be wearing much but she isn't flaunting her assets either, I'd argue the PF magus Iconic Seltyiel is more sexual than the Oni picture, he's thrusting his chest out and his outfit is obviously to draw attention to his muscles. Your picture is of someone in little clothing yes but its not designed to be skimpy its just lighter clothing, the character seems relaxed rather than provocative.
also… climate has a lot to do with it… like in the dark sun world… everyone is mostly nekkid (plus their poor with nor metal or every little)
Factor in different races that are completely alien and may have origins in entirely different existences would also have different levels of modesty/promiscuity.
I always wondered why creatures like vampires were depicted clothed…
Ive existed for hundreds and hundreds of years in this chamber, but I get some styling duds!
I get the ones who have walked around hiding among humans and all, its camouflage, look like a human so you can prey on them…but the crazy feral ones… are they really going to keep a wardrobe in their tomb? what do they care about clothes.
Demons, devils, outsiders same gig.
They may have humanoid "goods" but again their standards of modesty may be completely alien if not non existent.
Especially if their kind is naturally resistant to elements like heat cold… as clothing's maine purpose to to protect the weak and fragile naked body from the elements…. nat resistant to fire 5? cold 5? acid and electricity 5? yea… I wouldn't really worry tho much about a T shirt.
Aside from lance or bow, what was the most common way for a knight to die in battle?
Flailing about on his back, overweighed in armor while commoners wiggled thin blades between the seams in his armor.
I know of one historical example of something like that happening, it was during the Third Servile War when the Romans encountered a group of fully armored gladiators whom they could not effectively harm with their primary or secondary weapons, so they used tent poles to shove them over and trenching mattocks to puncture the armor. This was also over 2000 years ago in the Iron Age when a fully armored combatant was almost unheard of.
As time and technology progressed, armor got better and better. By the time thing like what Pathfinder considers to be full plate and half plate armor were being produced the people wearing it were ridiculously hard to kill. They had to start developing special pole arms and ranged weapons like heavy crossbows, bed de corbins, halberss, pollaxes, and firearms to outright kill the guys inside of it. The only reason the armor was not more common was because it was expensive and took hundreds of man hors to build and form. And it is a Hollywood myth that people in full plate were not mobile and quick. There is a video floating around on YouTube of a guy in the SCA disproving this myth by doing pushups, somersaults, and sprinting to prove exactly that.
That is also NOT the same armor that made guys wearing it nearly impossible to kill.
THAT armor a guy could be killed In a sword fight.THAT armor the guy would NOT wear into a charge… it's too light.
and the armor they did wear in heavy cavalry is NOT pierced by anything like a black powder long arm. they have videos of that on the internet too.
But your post still proves my point… the armor was VERY rare, and most people (including the guys who were trying to kill the dude wearing it) were NOT wearing it.
|
|
Rifles did penetrate armor, which resulted in making thicker breastplates, which resulted in more powerful firearms, which lead to thicker breastplates, and that trend continued into World War One. The reason firearms replaced bows and crossbows was absolutely because of the increased stopping and killing power, because bows and crossbows both reloaded much faster.
Yes, there was a period of time when after an armorsmith made a breastplate he would shoot it with a pistol to show it was bullet resistant. This was done because people had to be reassured that the breastplate would protect them from the firearms that were killing armored targets at the time.
That is how an arms race works.
I was never arguing that heavy armor was anything but rare. One of the most if not the most common body armor over the past 2000 years has been maille shirts. But when you didn't have money for that you had a shield and a helmet.
Sexism is as much about the pose as it is about the outfit.
Quick disagreement here... I don't think images of sexualized characters are necessarily sexist. Sometimes it's just the author giving what his target audience wants to see.
Red Sonja and her chain mail bikini is no more sexist than, say, the dude from Twilight who can't keep his shirt on for more than half a second. It seems pretty natural that media targeted primarily to male audiences will include stuff that men like to see (including but not limited to... sexy women in skimpy outfits), while media media targeted primarily to female audiences will include stuff that women like to see (including but not limited to... sexy men in skimpy outfits).
There is nothing wrong with creating, drawing and/or enjoying sexy characters, even if they reach over-the-top levels of sexiness.
The video also shows how medieval fights were often fought. If knights were not using long, powerful, heavy spears (often ones like lucrene hammers, which had a spike that could be best described as a 'can opener'. I think the first guy in the video has one, but I am not an expert on weapons), they would try to get a blade into the gaps of the armor (under the arm, through the...In the days of swords and spears, un armored combatants were far more common than armored ones.
Mostly because the warriors couldn't afford or didn't have access to armor,What about ship borne combat?
What armor do you see sword fighters in pirate movies wear?Opps. the whole "naked barbarian" trope is far more accurate than you think.
Aside from lance or bow, what was the most common way for a knight to die in battle?
Flailing about on his back, overweighed in armor while commoners wiggled thin blades between the seams in his armor.
Why would they wear it?
Different armor had different purposes.
The 55 pound open combat armor pretty much protected them against most combat, for most purposes.
But no one in their right mind would wear it jousting or in a cavalry charge.
they had different armor for that.
And THAT armor had a massive weight distribution drawback.
heavy cavalry filled the role tanks do on the battle field today.
A general doesn't just let infantry swarm his tanks, they still have weaknesses… and that's generally mobility.
For 3 out of 10 years of my military career, I was anti-tank infantry, I might know a little about that.
Also studied military history and police sci and VMI.
What armor looks like, and what armor was used for and how thick and heavy it was were completely different things.
And that SCA dude isn't going to go swimming, or wall scaling in his armor, now is he?
all sorts of things adventurers do, now don't they?
stop acting like anyone who got anywhere near a sword wore armor.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sexism is as much about the pose as it is about the outfit.Quick disagreement here... I don't think images of sexualized characters are necessarily sexist. Sometimes it's just the author giving what his target audience wants to see.
Red Sonja and her chain mail bikini is no more sexist than, say, the dude from Twilight who can't keep his shirt on for more than half a second. It seems pretty natural that media targeted primarily to male audiences will include stuff that men like to see (including but not limited to... sexy women in skimpy outfits), while media media targeted primarily to female audiences will include stuff that women like to see (including but not limited to... sexy men in skimpy outfits).
There is nothing wrong with creating, drawing and/or enjoying sexy characters, even if they reach over-the-top levels of sexiness.
I've never understood why people complain when we objectify objects. Fictional characters are not people, art doesn't have a mind or a personality or a life story. Treating real people like slabs of meat may be wrong but there is hardly anything wrong with treating a drawing or a character played by an actor that way. I like to think i respect people and treat them well but i certainly don't extend the same privileges to drawings.
Update:
I showed it to the group. Responses:
"What the hell? You dress like a whore!"
"That's rather... boobalicious, don't you think?"
"Uh... maybe you could just use Heromachine."
Update:
I showed it to the group. Responses:
"What the hell? You dress like a whore!"
"That's rather... boobalicious, don't you think?"
"Uh... maybe you could just use Heromachine."
Different people different sensibilities I guess.
Regarding manner of dress, show them art of Conan , ask them if that character would be acceptable and if they say yes tell them to STFU.
The art isn't posed in any sort of overtly sexual manner. She seems to just be hangin out not soliciting sex.
As to "boobalicious" yes, some women have large breasts... and? By my admittedly poor understanding of anatomy the size does seem unlikely given the rest of the well defined musculature but whatever, we're not even dealing with a human, all anatomical bets are off.
- Torger