Guild Wars 2

1. They are not women, they are robots
2. As much as provocative it looks, its nothing compared to certain human and norn armors.
3. Everyone likes kittens, so why fight against it when you can enjoy it, even if its cold metal.

No, it’s not an assault on women appearing in media, it’s an assault on pointlessly hyper-sexualised and unrealistic depictions of women in media.

It’s a standard of video games, comics, etc. Most characters end up depicted in completely unrealistic and/or perfect physical forms. (It’s why Professor X has muscular legs, and Reed Richards is built like Superman)

The problem is that no one ever attacks the male side, only the female side. And you THINK you’re doing some kind of noble service, when really you’re just stigmatizing the female form.

but the designers decided to make them SexBots.

The only people that see them as “SexBots” are the ones looking for something to be outraged about. And again, you think you’re being all noble about it, when you’re really just exacerbating the problem that you think you’re fighting against. (That being, “Oh, a female. Clearly this is just a sex object because it has breasts. Lets focus on that instead of any other value this might have.”)

The problem is that no one ever attacks the male side, only the female side.

This simply isn’t true. It’s just that it’s a completely different problem (power fantasy vs. sexualization), and I feel it’s best discussed separately. I would definitely appreciate better represented males as well. But it’s certainly an issue that’s discussed, just not as often, and it’s not as controversial. You’re sooner to skim and forget it, whereas this is a hot topic (especially as of late because of Anita Sarkeesian’s controversial behaviour) where you’re bound to see more emotionally charged replies which inclines you to jump in.

I think the Watchknights look awesome! A little like they could have come from Elona! Crazy wicked design in my opinion with a lot of technical bits of coding and such. Great addition to the lore of Tyria!

Kinda look like robotic Sunspear guards!

(power fantasy vs. sexualization)

See, this is what bothers me about it.

When an unrealistically perfect female with some cleavage showing is presented, it’s a sexualized image created to appeal to men, and thus an example of men’s sexism against females, it’s damaging to women’s self-esteem and body image, a visual form of misogyny, reducing femininity only to it’s physical parts, so on and so forth.

When an unrealistically perfect male with their entire chest, abdomen, and god knows what other crazily developed muscle groups showing is presented, it’s not a sexualized image, and it’s supposedly not appealing to women at all. Somehow this ALSO gets blamed on men and their sexism, because it’s some kind of “Power Fantasy”. It’s not at all harmful to male self-esteem or body image, it’s not an example of misandry, it’s not reducing masculinity only to it’s physical parts, etc.

It’s frustrating for several reasons.

1) It’s a clear double standard, but generally men aren’t allowed to talk about it. If a male said, “That image of a hyper-built, physically perfect, air brushed model makes me feel insecure.” he’d just get laughed at.

2) It doesn’t help with actual womens’ issues. There are a lot of them, too. Real issues in the real world that demand attention. Instead we get a lot of – quite frankly – lazy “feminists” who want to feel like they’re morally superior crusaders, but only want to pick the low hanging fruit that is the “omg boobs” topic.

3) It only further stigmatizes the female form. I actually wonder if women in the real world with large busts feel self-conscious because the rest of their gender seems to be so disgusted with any depiction – real or created – of breasts larger than a B cup. (Even fully clothed ones.)

(especially as of late because of Anita Sarkeesian’s controversial behaviour)

And yeah, Sarkeesian is an example of a “feminist” who doesn’t seem to want to actually take up any meaningful battles and would instead rather invent completely absurd issues to turn into faux-outrage. (And then she gets completely trolled hardcore by the internet and thinks that it proves her point or something, while totally unaware that she’s being trolled something fierce)

norn shows his chest and no one bats an eye

robot has areolas and everyone loses their minds

It’s not at all harmful to male self-esteem or body image, it’s not an example of misandry, it’s not reducing masculinity only to it’s physical parts, etc.

First and last — not true. That’s why it’s still a problem. Yes, it’s often brought up in a way to say, women and men aren’t portrayed equally. But it’s still a problem on its own, for these reasons. I believe it’s harmful to men as well. As for misandry, it could be argued both ways, but it’s harder to equalize it to the female sexualization because it’s still mostly men behind the media. If it was women who spammed beefcakes in media in the first place and for the most part, it would be easier to say this. I’m not disagreeing, but it would have to be investigated and discussed in detail.

It’s a clear double standard, but generally men aren’t allowed to talk about it. If a male said, “That image of a hyper-built, physically perfect, air brushed model makes me feel insecure.” he’d just get laughed at.

I think this is dumb. I think they should be allowed to, and should talk about it. And this is also a side effect of a greater problem men have in general, where femininity is insulting. That usually gets brought up in feminism topics, but I think it’s a problem that very much applies to men.

It doesn’t help with actual womens’ issues. There are a lot of them, too. Real issues in the real world that demand attention. Instead we get a lot of – quite frankly – lazy “feminists” who want to feel like they’re morally superior crusaders, but only want to pick the low hanging fruit that is the “omg boobs” topic.

I agree that there are greater issues. And yes, there’s people who only discuss the easier, less dangerous topics. But it gets people thinking, too. I think it’s fine to discuss this, but people should strive to keep it objective and not let emotion blind them. This counts for all sides.

It only further stigmatizes the female form. I actually wonder if women in the real world with large busts feel self-conscious because the rest of their gender seems to be so disgusted with any depiction – real or created – of breasts larger than a B cup. (Even fully clothed ones.)

I’ve seen this. And I believe this is why having several kinds of feminism is a good thing. I don’t think there’s any one true answer, and having multiple opinions is very beneficial. In the case of the watch knights, I feel the problem is that it’s fairly pointless. I’m not offended by the sight of boobs, I just feel it isn’t all that artistic either, and strikes me more that because it has a female shape, it also has to be conventionally sexy. But as you said, it’s also not that significant, so I don’t care to argue on this particular topic.

@Radio Isotope (since the post was deleted): There are feminists who are bad at making arguments for sure, but your wife’s missing the point entirely. :/

Ake.3014:

There are feminists who are bad at making arguments for sure, but your wife’s missing the point entirely. :/

Whats the point then? Whats offensive about the human body?

Whats the point then? Whats offensive about the human body?

It’s not what’s offensive about the human body itself, but the artists’ intentions, and the prominence across media over time and the impression and influence it leaves upon its consumers. There is nothing wrong with a woman who is conventionally attractive, and she has every right to feel good about herself, and to be represented in the media she consumes. She has the right to be sexual, dress however she wants, et cetera. But there are many women who aren’t conventionally attractive, who not only rarely see themselves in the media they consume, but are insulted and disregarded by the men (and sometimes women!) who believe the only attractive women are the ones they see in media. And people’s impressions of what are beautiful are definitely influenced by media (and vice versa), if you consider what people considered beautiful across different times and cultures, and compare it to their works of art. There’s also a problem of artists using sex to sell, or just casually thinking, I want a sexy women, so they put in a sexy women, because she’s sexy, not because they want to show her as empowered and capable of choice. Of course, someone who would want to put in just that might very well create the same product, which is why issues such as the watch knight are tricky to discuss.

The problem is that there is a very small definition of beauty, and that small definition is everywhere. If you’re a woman who doesn’t fall into that definition, there’s a good chance life will be harder for you. And yes, some people will rage and think all women who fit this standard of beauty (fictional or otherwise) are terrible, but just because they argue it poorly doesn’t make the problem a non-issue.

I’m sure there’s a lot of details I’m missing here. But it’s not about ruining the game for those who don’t have their problems.

But there are many men who aren’t conventionally attractive, who not only rarely see themselves in the media they consume, but are insulted and disregarded by the women (and sometimes men!) who believe the only attractive men are the ones they see in media.

Fixed for completions’ sake.

Yes, it works that way, too.

I definitely agree.

Yeah, looks like it’s gone.

Bovinity.8610:

Honestly most “feminists” that I have met are normally lesbians who are jealous of others appearances and absolutely despise Men in every form

Yeesh, ok, dial it back a notch there, sir.

Next time you quote me, quote my entire sentence, don’t pick and choose. That’s called a misquote and takes the entire sentence out of context.

Ake.3014:

Whats the point then? Whats offensive about the human body?

It’s not what’s offensive about the human body itself, but the artists’ intentions, and the prominence across media over time and the impression and influence it leaves upon its consumers. There is nothing wrong with a woman who is conventionally attractive, and she has every right to feel good about herself, and to be represented in the media she consumes. She has the right to be sexual, dress however she wants, et cetera. But there are many women who aren’t conventionally attractive, who not only rarely see themselves in the media they consume, but are insulted and disregarded by the men (and sometimes women!) who believe the only attractive women are the ones they see in media. And people’s impressions of what are beautiful are definitely influenced by media (and vice versa), if you consider what people considered beautiful across different times and cultures, and compare it to their works of art. There’s also a problem of artists using sex to sell, or just casually thinking, I want a sexy women, so they put in a sexy women, because she’s sexy, not because they want to show her as empowered and capable of choice. Of course, someone who would want to put in just that might very well create the same product, which is why issues such as the watch knight are tricky to discuss.

The problem is that there is a very small definition of beauty, and that small definition is everywhere. If you’re a woman who doesn’t fall into that definition, there’s a good chance life will be harder for you. And yes, some people will rage and think all women who fit this standard of beauty (fictional or otherwise) are terrible, but just because they argue it poorly doesn’t make the problem a non-issue.

I’m sure there’s a lot of details I’m missing here. But it’s not about ruining the game for those who don’t have their problems.

Honestly I don’t think fat women are attractive nor will I ever think fat men are attractive. But there is a science behind what is appealing to our eyes. and the science says that when we see a “beautiful person” we get certain stimuli that actually prolongs your life. So this image has been portrayed for a very very long time. the fact still remains though if you don’t like it then don’t play! In this game they have artistic rights and therefore it does not matter what you or the (guessed—->3% <—-guessed) of you that are offended think and it will stay.

Maybe we should censor these as well then and make them fat? and give them covered breasts?

Ake.3014:

Whats the point then? Whats offensive about the human body?

It’s not what’s offensive about the human body itself, but the artists’ intentions, and the prominence across media over time and the impression and influence it leaves upon its consumers. There is nothing wrong with a woman who is conventionally attractive, and she has every right to feel good about herself, and to be represented in the media she consumes. She has the right to be sexual, dress however she wants, et cetera. But there are many women who aren’t conventionally attractive, who not only rarely see themselves in the media they consume, but are insulted and disregarded by the men (and sometimes women!) who believe the only attractive women are the ones they see in media. And people’s impressions of what are beautiful are definitely influenced by media (and vice versa), if you consider what people considered beautiful across different times and cultures, and compare it to their works of art. There’s also a problem of artists using sex to sell, or just casually thinking, I want a sexy women, so they put in a sexy women, because she’s sexy, not because they want to show her as empowered and capable of choice. Of course, someone who would want to put in just that might very well create the same product, which is why issues such as the watch knight are tricky to discuss.

The problem is that there is a very small definition of beauty, and that small definition is everywhere. If you’re a woman who doesn’t fall into that definition, there’s a good chance life will be harder for you. And yes, some people will rage and think all women who fit this standard of beauty (fictional or otherwise) are terrible, but just because they argue it poorly doesn’t make the problem a non-issue.

I’m sure there’s a lot of details I’m missing here. But it’s not about ruining the game for those who don’t have their problems.

Honestly I don’t think fat women are attractive nor will I ever think fat men are attractive. But there is a science behind what is appealing to our eyes. and the science says that when we see a “beautiful person” we get certain stimuli that actually prolongs your life. So this image has been portrayed for a very very long time. the fact still remains though if you don’t like it then don’t play! In this game they have artistic rights and therefore it does not matter what you or the (guessed—->3% <—-guessed) of you that are offended think and it will stay.

Maybe we should censor these as well then and make them fat? and give them covered breasts?[/quote]

I feel I should point out that in the eyes of the media these days, those statues would in fact be labeled as “fat” unfortunately.

Also I can’t think of a single context where that sentence would not be insanely stupid and honestly offensive.

Your comment about a female mod doesn’t help either.

I feel I should point out that in the eyes of the media these days, those statues would in fact be labeled as “fat” unfortunately.

True….and it’s confusing, too. I dunno who’s driving that, because neither I nor any men I know happen to like this, “70-pound, skeleton totally visible, no actual apparent feminine parts” image that’s been portrayed in recent years as “sexy”.

Broadicea.8294:

Yeah I guess they literally had no choice other than giving that female robot a set of 44DDD’s and a trunk overflowing with junk.

If you want to complain about big breasts and curvy hips, you really don’t need to go that far.

So, in light of the Norn and Human physiques being much worse than the Watchknights, except for the fact that they got some ornate design on their bum, what is so bad about someone wanting to design a female robot?

its w/e I don’t care and all your fussing wont make anyone change it so im just going to laugh and call it a day.

just as a female human designer might have made adonis-like robots, a male human designer, who is employed by a female queen, decided to create a female-looking robot, maybe even as a tribute to the powerful woman he serves.

from a lore standpoint I don’t see much problems with this, if you do, it’s because you chose to view it differently, nothing in the lore suggests this is inappropriate (the art we know from the game, i.e. malchor’s wasn’t entirely modest either).

if you personally have a problem with the female form.. well.. grow up, I guess? personally I really don’t care about the watchknights but why would I be offended by them? I just don’t zoom in and goggle at their chests.

and please, for once stop pretending ‘the children’ shouldn’t see something like that. if you really cared about children, you wouldn’t let them play a game where stuff dies (humans, kitties/char, skritt) – seeing a female chest on a robot won’t disturb them nearly as much as seeing all those poor, faithful oger pets, only loyally trying to help their caring masters, getting slaughtered by hordes of players greedy for any loot they can get.

Bovinity.8610:

I feel I should point out that in the eyes of the media these days, those statues would in fact be labeled as “fat” unfortunately.

True….and it’s confusing, too. I dunno who’s driving that, because neither I nor any men I know happen to like this, “70-pound, skeleton totally visible, no actual apparent feminine parts” image that’s been portrayed in recent years as “sexy”.

Honestly this isn’t the first time, from what I’ve read society didn’t give a kitten about women and hairy legs till someone started marketing it as a big deal.

But there is a science behind what is appealing to our eyes. and the science says that when we see a “beautiful person” we get certain stimuli that actually prolongs your life.

Different cultures have different definitions of beauty. Fat women were certainly attractive in the past, and I believe the theory behind this is that food was more scarce so a fat woman was better off. There is a science behind it like you say, but it’s very complicated. Our modern western view of what an attractive woman is, is not objective.

the fact still remains though if you don’t like it then don’t play! In this game they have artistic rights and therefore it does not matter what you or the (guessed—->3% <—-guessed) of you that are offended think and it will stay.

That’s not the point… As long as it comes up, it will be pointed out, and discussed. It’s an issue deeply embedded into society itself. Don’t like the discussion, don’t join.

Maybe we should censor these as well then and make them fat? and give them covered breasts?

Inequivalent analogy — different media, different intentions. What you posted is pure art, and as Celestina points out, doesn’t completely match our modern definition of beauty anyway. In this particular example of the watch knights, it may, or may not, be art. It might be an appreciation of the female body, or it might be marketing, or it might be creative laziness. But the problem is much more widespread than just this, not just in this game, but all media. There is no one solution. Not all women should be fat, or covered. But that doesn’t mean this isn’t a problem.

I said I was going to laugh and call it a day I know i know. BUT Video games are pure art as well, just a different form, like the statue and the painting. Now think of this game as a canvas without the colors and objects there is nothing its empty and blank. Then an ARTIST draws a concept, then the concepts are filtered out to just the best pieces, then the ART is put into coding and another ARTIST makes a 3D version of the concepts and “paints” and “sculpts” the world to create what we play. The flagship for the manifesto of GW2 was that this is an ARTISTIC game. To say this game is NOT PURE ART is to be closed minded in what your own definitions of art is. If you are so upset about not having fat people in the game then make a fat toon (which you can, I checked (which I don’t see many of ingame. WHO KNEW?) to explore this beautiful handcrafted collaborative ART that you experience.

Olba.5376:

Broadicea.8294:

Yeah I guess they literally had no choice other than giving that female robot a set of 44DDD’s and a trunk overflowing with junk.

If you want to complain about big breasts and curvy hips, you really don’t need to go that far.

So, in light of the Norn and Human physiques being much worse than the Watchknights, except for the fact that they got some ornate design on their bum, what is so bad about someone wanting to design a female robot?

Oh believe me, I have my gripes about Norn and Human models and outfits as well. But this thread was about Watchknights.

And nothing is wrong with a Watchknight having female characteristics. The problem is the abundance of hyper-sexualized juvenile fantasy body types being used for those female representations. As I’ve said. Many times.

Specifically, “the problem” is not the existence of it, and people who are spinning this into some puritannical crusade to ban displays of sexuality are either unintentionally or willfully obfuscating the point while engaging in a massive strawman fallacy. The problem is the societal effect these representations have when our media is full of them.

They are walking statues.

Those models are ART.

If you want them to lose them nipples, first, go to the Louvre Museum, and demand them to remove the nipples from the Venus de Milo.

Once you get them to do that, you can come back and I’ll accept your silly request to destroy art because of some silly prude reason.

Of course, you’ll never get them to do that, in the same way you should never get ANet to destroy their own art.

Here are three robot designs which have plainly female characteristics without being overtly hyper-sexualized to the point of absurdity.

Radio Isotope.3045:

I said I was going to laugh and call it a day I know i know. BUT Video games are pure art as well, just a different form, like the statue and the painting. Now think of this game as a canvas without the colors and objects there is nothing its empty and blank. Then an ARTIST draws a concept, then the concepts are filtered out to just the best pieces, then the ART is put into coding and another ARTIST makes a 3D version of the concepts and “paints” and “sculpts” the world to create what we play. The flagship for the manifesto of GW2 was that this is an ARTISTIC game. To say this game is NOT PURE ART is to be closed minded in what your own definitions of art is. If you are so upset about not having fat people in the game then make a fat toon (which you can, I checked (which I don’t see many of ingame. WHO KNEW?) to explore this beautiful handcrafted collaborative ART that you experience.

This is a craft, not an art, to me. A craft is something that is practical but ornate, but primarily practical. In this case, the assets are required for the game to function. Pure art to me is making something purely for the sake of expression, and not because it’s required.

By the way, man, relax. Remember what I said about people being blinded by emotion? That kinda sounds like you right now.

Art is not above criticism for its societal impact. Neither are absurdly busty sexbots in a vidya gaem.

Ake.3014:

Radio Isotope.3045:

I said I was going to laugh and call it a day I know i know. BUT Video games are pure art as well, just a different form, like the statue and the painting. Now think of this game as a canvas without the colors and objects there is nothing its empty and blank. Then an ARTIST draws a concept, then the concepts are filtered out to just the best pieces, then the ART is put into coding and another ARTIST makes a 3D version of the concepts and “paints” and “sculpts” the world to create what we play. The flagship for the manifesto of GW2 was that this is an ARTISTIC game. To say this game is NOT PURE ART is to be closed minded in what your own definitions of art is. If you are so upset about not having fat people in the game then make a fat toon (which you can, I checked (which I don’t see many of ingame. WHO KNEW?) to explore this beautiful handcrafted collaborative ART that you experience.

This is a craft, not an art, to me. A craft is something that is practical but ornate, but primarily practical. In this case, the assets are required for the game to function. Pure art to me is making something purely for the sake of expression, and not because it’s required.

By the way, man, relax. Remember what I said about people being blinded by emotion? That kinda sounds like you right now.

Craft huh?
I guess Sculpting is a craft then……. oh wait it is
I guess Painting is a craft as well……..oh wait it is

Broadicea.8294:

Art is not above criticism for its societal impact. Neither are absurdly busty sexbots in a vidya gaem.

Radio Isotope.3045:

Craft huh?
I guess Sculpting is a craft then……. oh wait it is
I guess Painting is a craft as well……..oh wait it is

I’m using specific definitions here for the sake of argument and you know it, bro.

Broadicea.8294:

Here are three robot designs which have plainly female characteristics without being overtly hyper-sexualized to the point of absurdity.

Those do not fit the human “Victorian clockwork technology” theme. Not enough round shapes, reliefs and sprockets.

And the first one IS sexualized. You may not see it, but at the time that film was made, that was close to what now is having an actress with no clothing other than bodypaint in a big budget movie.

Those things are in the eye of the one seeing more than anything.
There’s places where they’ll call a woman a meretrix for showing her ankles, for Grenth’s sake.

There’s no perversion until someone sees it.

Ake.3014:

Radio Isotope.3045:

Craft huh?
I guess Sculpting is a craft then……. oh wait it is
I guess Painting is a craft as well……..oh wait it is

I’m using specific definitions here for the sake of argument and you know it, bro.

I don’t know, it kinda sounded like you didn’t know that painting and sculpting and video game designing was a craft? oh wait you knew that?

lol craft… When ANET was releasing the game they said that they wanted the players to feel like everything was artistic and hand CRAFTed… Crafting is part of art.

If a player is unhappy with a specific part of the game, then don’t take part in what you are unhappy with. The Knight is a work or ART. It was CREATED by a designer, then coded into the game. It obviously was scrutinized thoroughly before it was even added into the game. If it was thought to be offensive, it would have been omitted.
As well as the knights aren’t sex bot, if they were I think they would be performing some type of inappropriate action, or stating an inappropriate phrase. Which they aren’t…
Obviously not everyone is going to be happy, but being THIS nitpicky is ridiculous. If you dont like something, then don’t participate – as no one is forcing you. If all aspects of the female body were taken out of the game, then the female players who are complaining now would complain more because of the sexism in omitting the female body. Let’s stop complaining just to complain. If the knights had pubic hair on the genitals, or if they were 100% anatomically correct then I would understand, but they aren’t.

Dress the kitten bots in a white toga or dress and call it a day. Geeze.

the cloth would get in the gears……..

Broadicea.8294:

Here are three robot designs which have plainly female characteristics without being overtly hyper-sexualized to the point of absurdity.

Yes, and?

Those artists, for whatever reason decided to design those robots in that style. To say that those are “better” artistic representations of a female robot is completely subjective, nor does it take into consideration the context.

Projecting your own personal ideal of what you think is feminine, is completely subjective.

Anyway, this topic has been discussed in another thread. I suggest you guys all hop over there and read it so you don’t rehash the same arguments.

Here

If all aspects of the female body were taken out of the game, then the female players who are complaining now would complain more because of the sexism in omitting the female body.

No, because they’re different forms of feminism, generally held by separate people. And not all people complaining are women either.

My point with the art-craft argument is expression vs. requirement, since you’d rather debate language over my point. As I said several times before, there is no way to tell what the intentions of the designer were with the watch knight specifically. This is why comparing a statue to the watch knight is not equivalent.

That is not a woman, therefore none of the opinions of this thread matter.

That is a machine, not a woman. There is a big difference. Your actually discriminating against woman and humanity for believing such.

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

Anyway, this topic has been discussed in another thread. I suggest you guys all hop over there and read it so you don’t rehash the same arguments.

check your dates and you will see this thread is older….

Daecollo.9578:

That is not a woman, therefore none of the opinions of this thread matter.

That is a machine, not a woman. There is a big difference. Your actually discriminating against woman and humanity for believing such.

It’s a representation of the humanoid female form. Don’t be coy.