The issue for me is whether one gender is sexualized and the other is not. Either sexualize both or neither.
Exactly. As I said before, it sets a precedent to sexualize one but not the other.
Originally Posted by Aishaddai
@Starlights I was in a joking mood then and didn't finish what I was going to say. You misunderstood my tone. I was actually going in a more joking direction before the interrogation began. My point in a more serious manner is that when given the choice to simply request what some have claimed to be wronged, some of you instead went to change something that was not in question in the first place. Essentially you are not righting a wrong you are causing a revenge tactic to claim fair game which of course means you at least subconsciously know what's going on. That's not justice, that's revenge. Which is close but not the same. Your claim was that the armor for women does not please you, therefore the armor for men must change. That is sexist and does not even solve the problem you complained about in the first place.
We can't right a wrong that goes beyond the scope of fictional video games. The game could give the female half-plate pants or even erase visual dimorphic differences in armor entirely and some people will still mod it back in, complaining on the forums about prudes and politics, and feel like they have a right to do so.
Yes, it is a false equivalence - skimpy male armor does not have the same implications as skimpy female armor. It's not true equality, but it will never be revenge because they appeal differently to who they appeal to. Sexualized clothes to some are an invitation (deserving of whatever it provokes) rather than it being an advertisement, which echoes longstanding real world issues I will not elaborate on in this forum. You call it hypocritical revenge because you think we're just trying to flip the script.
We have Drow for that. This is about putting a bare minimum of static noise over something otherwise blaringly obvious. When it's just females sexualized, there is the implication of "deserving whatever they provoke", there to be feasted upon by the eyes and not a serious, capable character. Compared to a male that is not given a compromising implication. When its both males and females sexualized, I can say it's not targeted to one sex. It's "equal".