Originally Posted by Sordak
i absoluteley dont have an issue with sexualized or naked men.

So we've arrived at a point of agreement. I'm fine with a set of armor that becomes banana hammock. Or a John Carter type chest piece.

In the game the dataminers have found an outfit that looks much like Princess Leia's slave costume. To avoid having only one gender sexualized we should encounter another another NPC in an equivalent outfit, one like the one like @kadajko posted. This avoids the message that women are objects and men are subjects.

I'm equally fine with @flyimar's suggestion - give Laezel pants -- but that leaves the (potential, not verified) NPC problem. I still think there is a problem if we only have succubi types and not incubi

However i argue that if you sexualize a man like you sexualize a woman, he wont be sexy but emasculated.

put conan in a chainmail bikini and he looks like a joke.

I think that moment can go one of two ways -- if you see the Borat thong equivalent you can get upset that the devs put in the game but it can also serve as an invitation to experience empathy. I think the thrust of Borat's joke is to make men understand just how ridiculous some women's swimwear is. "is that comfortable? how does he keep things from falling out . . ."

So if an outfit seems on one gender, perhaps it was also ridiculous on the other gender but we've become so desensitized to the point that we can no longer spot absurdities that conform to traditional gender norms.

Didn't know that about Etruscans. Interesting.

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.

Sure when dealing with Romans you have to remember that the historians were liars. smile But it is significant to think about why the authors would want the lie told a certain way.

I think the whole conquest of Britania is itself hard to explain. Economic accounts don't suffice. It was a poor province that remained a bleeding wound in the side of the empire until the Romans finally retreated. I think you need to look to explanations like public image -- emperors needed to maintain an image, Romans citizens needed to know how these conquests were expressions of certain world view. And every empire fears the spectacle of being defied by a minor power. I think you can see examples of various empire crushing tiny islands and the like out of fear that the defiance might spread.