|
|
|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
|
I not asking for realistic armor (although I hate silly pauldrons) I'm just saying that both genders should be treated equally. If one set of armor shows legs and buttocks on women then the same armor should also show legs and buttocks on men. Sexualize both genders or neither. Patriarchy is: Patriarchy is a social system in which men hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property . . . Which describes Roman society to a T. If you can't call Roman society patriarchical by this definition then no society is patriarchical. This conflict, which did indeed concern patrilineal property rights as well as also political authority. Boudica was not just getting the property but the ability to lead. And it's difficult not see the gendering of the punishments. Which is consistent with Romans -- the often had creative (and terrible) punishments set to fit the crime. Wikipedia continues: Patriarchy is associated with a set of ideas, a patriarchal ideology that acts to explain and justify this dominance and attributes it to inherent natural differences between men and women. Which is true of Romans. It's expressed very well in the marriage ceremony. Men were Gaius, women Gaia -- marriage relate to each in terms of Gaius / Gaia roles. These marriage rules were enforced by ritual sexualized humiliations. And again we see this in how much of the society was devoted to a celebration of masculinity -- magic penis amulets, ballsack oaths, 'seminal' agricultural ceremonies the terrible anxieties Roman men had about being made cuckold. Back to chicken / egg point. So if we live in a world with certain gender roles, if those were stable for much of European history what explains that? One possibility is nature, this is just the order of things. Another is that we are the children of Rome, that Roman law became church law became civil law . . .
Last edited by KillerRabbit; 14/01/21 09:46 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Dec 2020
|
Because the argument, we have to accept revealing female armor if we want to play female fighters came up: I don't have to accept armor, that clearly oozes sexism. My female fighter is not wearing the currently best armor for her, because I find it distasteful.
That is the whole purpose of this thread, voicing our opinions about armor - some want more revealing armor for both sexes, some (me included) want less revealing armor. If Larian gives us options, then everyone will be satisfied.
But I really don't see, how we have to accept revealing armor on females just because they are fighters. If you want revealing armor on your female character, by all means, knock yourself out. But I want my female fighter properly dressed.
Tradition in fantasy art isn't an argument for me. Things can change and they have. In a lot of games, you can choose different outfits for your character.
"We are all stories in the end. Just make it a good one."
Doctor Who
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Mar 2013
|
i absoluteley dont have an issue with sexualized or naked men.
However i argue that if you sexualize a man like you sexualize a woman, he wont be sexy but emasculated. Likewise if you sexualize a woman like a man, she would look vulgar and not sexy.
put conan in a chainmail bikini and he looks like a joke.
put red sonja in a loincloth and she looks indecent rather than powerfull.
Of course the ancient etruscans would have disagreed with our modern notions of tits beeing indecent, but thats hardly my fault.
Im not saying that romans werent patriarchal in the anthropological sense.
Im considering the notion silly that the romans would conquer someone specifically because they were ruled by a woman.
Note that there were far more female centric cultures in the roman sphere of influence than the island celts, who, as ive pointed out, were not matriarchal, they were a patriarchic culture by your own definition that happened to be ruled by a woman.
the same could be said about austria under maria theresia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Shouldn't this thread be in suggestions and feedback? I think the armours are fine myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: May 2016
|
However i argue that if you sexualize a man like you sexualize a woman, he wont be sexy but emasculated. You are implying that there is something wrong with males having feminine featuires or having feminine armor available to males. I think it can be done well and it doesn't look like a joke (atleast not more of a joke than some female armor): Likewise if you sexualize a woman like a man, she would look vulgar and not sexy. Like I mentioned previously you are allowed to account for difference in biology. If the male would be bare chested, just cover the chest. Both types are fine.
Last edited by Kadajko; 14/01/21 11:04 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
|
|
Banned
Joined: Nov 2020
|
Pretty sure Boadicea got aced because she was a woman just as much as Cleopatra got snaked because she was one. The difference being, of course, that we know a bit more about the latter than the former.
We also have no way of knowing if the story about the daughters, the flogging and the rest is true, since there are only three accounts about the whole ordeal and only of them mentions it. Either way, when Tacitus does mention it those acts aren't celebrated but rather denounced, and they're not even described as unlawful 'punishment' (so something that would be seen as acceptable punishment) but rather a consequence of Boadicea's husband's death and the chaos it caused.
Also, i'll admit i got used to topics derailing towards sexism and/or racism around here, but i gotta say it's the first time i see one ending up in roman history.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Shadiversity on youtube did an interesting video (several?) on fantasy armour. It focused on female boobplate armour and it's realism, but he touched on male armour in fantasy too. I'm not sure how relevent to the topic it is, but considering there's a 15 page throad on fantasy armour some people might find it an interesting watch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I just noticed that it looks like she is wearing ballerina slippers and leg warmers
Optimistically Apocalyptic
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
|
However i argue that if you sexualize a man like you sexualize a woman, he wont be sexy but emasculated. You are implying that there is something wrong with males having feminine featuires or having feminine armor available to males. Because there is, generally speaking. Well, "something wrong" is not how I'd put it. It's not that it can't be done. It's just that it simply doesn't work aside from a narrow fringe group with a specific weird fetish. And typically men are praised (or mocked) the most they get close to (or stray afar from) an ideal of masculinity, while the same happens for women and femininity. Which doesn't mean that there isn't room for some overlap or mix-up, but still. The reason cries about "double standards" are idiotic in general is that "double standards" tend to exist for a legitimate reason. It's disingenuous bullshit to hang to the notion "When it's the same for both is fine" because this alleged peak egalitarian goal of having "The same from both no matter what" doesn't achieve the same effect symmetrically. Imagine arguing that since one of the top displays of elegance for a fancy evening date for women is a cocktail dress ![[Linked Image from weddingwhispers.com.au]](https://weddingwhispers.com.au/6557-large_zen/cocktail-dress-mc18275.jpg) ...then the same should apply to the men accompanying them, rather than a tuxedo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: May 2016
|
The reason cries about "double standards" are idiotic in general is that "double standards" tend to exist for a legitimate reason. Actually there is no legitimate reason for it, well, some people think that there is a legitimate reason, but actually it is completely devoid of any rationality. Imagine arguing that since one of the top displays of elegance for a fancy evening date for women is a cocktail dress then the same should apply to the men accompanying them, rather than a tuxedo. Sounds great, but ''should'' is the wrong word, whether to wear a dress or a tuxedo is a personal choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
|
Sure, to score "progressive points" on twitter. Hardly to have something resembling a half decent social life.
Last edited by Tuco; 14/01/21 11:37 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cleric of Innuendo
|
|
Cleric of Innuendo
Joined: Oct 2020
|
If this forum platform had the ability to spin a poll, We are considering adding a poll facility, but nothing is ready to roll out just yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: May 2016
|
Sure, to score "progressive points" on twitter.
Hardly to have something resembling a half decent social life. No, literally the opposite. I don't even own a twitter account lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
|
apprentice
Joined: Dec 2020
|
Imagine arguing that since one of the top displays of elegance for a fancy evening date for women is a cocktail dress
...then the same should apply to the men accompanying them, rather than a tuxedo. ![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/UezSUur.jpg) ...works for me
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
|
No, literally the opposite. Yeah, I'm sure the man in a feminine cocktail dress is going to be the role model everyone will long to match and pillar of his own social circle. I'm sure it does.
Last edited by Tuco; 14/01/21 11:53 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: May 2016
|
Yeah, I'm sure the man in a feminine cocktail dress is going to be the role model everyone will long to match and pillar of his own social circle. How about just a person minding their own business and wearing what they like? @CopperCrate Oh God, you reminded me of that freakout, that drama was so funny, Owens and Shapiro especially.
Last edited by Kadajko; 14/01/21 11:59 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cleric of Innuendo
|
|
Cleric of Innuendo
Joined: Oct 2020
|
This thread is veering away from its original point about armour design in BG3.
Let's keep on track, please people. The wider discussion of gender roles and norms has no place on this part of the forum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Dec 2020
|
I forgot to mention, that I really loved those Steampunk attires, posted a few pages back. Would love to have something like that for my rogues, bards etc(I do make Steampunk clothing for conventions irl). They do look kind of sexy, but they also let the wearer appeared dressed. So it's the best of both worlds imo.
And I really would like to see, how that poll goes, if that will be possible one day.
"We are all stories in the end. Just make it a good one."
Doctor Who
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cleric of Innuendo
|
|
Cleric of Innuendo
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I have merged this thread with previous threads concerning armour appearance in BG3.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I like my characters to actually look like heroines and heroes and not like some nuns or nerds. I wanna have Superman in my party, not Clark Kent. Whatever way Larian decides to go, I'll play the outfits modded anyway since modern games tend to go the wrong route way too often. There's already many good outfit mods and they will likely get even better over time.
When I play my heroine, she will be sexy and clearly distinguishable from normal people as it should be. It would be nice if the game offered sexy enough outfits by default but considering the pressure all gaming companies find themselves in nowadays (a pressure I will never understand), I fear I will have to mod more rather than less.
Personally I know no one who approves uptight clothes for heroes. All people I know including my mom find sexy outfits a must for them.
Last edited by Amitaya; 14/01/21 02:44 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/zv5TmZnm/gbg0OuB.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/NMd1mC3R/46dc47ef189eab401e6f93a21b6cbf70.jpg)
