Guild Wars 2

lorazcyk.8927:

Because I wanted to add something to it and it was on topic (IIRC)
If you didn’t want to reply, you didn’t/don’t have to.

Well this is a good reason not to bother replying to you.

Here’s a suggestion: If you have a point to make, just write it. If you have an opinion, just write it. If you have to quote something that has already been discussed ages ago to try and make a point, likely you’re just repeating what other people say. You’re not adding anything, you’re retreading.

I read that post, and I know you said that. I wasn’t asking you, it was a rhetorical question to the points I had raised prior to it. (Such as: “the sky is so boring, why can’t it be colored like the rainbow?”)

Then learn to stop quoting people when you have something to say that isn’t related to anything anyone is saying. Or learn to clarify what you write. You can’t have a decent conversation with someone if they ramble about random things that no one is talking about.

But the reason the person has talked about is because s/he is trying to make her point about character armor in Gw2, and why that matters so much to him or her….

Which doesn’t need your additional input because I already acknowledge what that person was trying to do. Or do you not understand that you’re basically perpetuating arguments that don’t need it? Or were you expecting people to just ignore what you say because what you’re saying has been said so is inconsequential to the discussion?

Welp, I guess we’re done here guys. lorazcyk is basically saying “I’m just rambling behind you, no need to point me to how the discussion concluded because I don’t care”.

Ummm… yes I did? Not just in this post but others too.

If you weren’t so keen about going offtopic you would have noticed it

That isn’t aimed at my posts. Why would I want to read your posts when all they’re doing is pulling up crap people already resolved in their discussions? Basically, I’m reading what’s new (when I start reading phrases, I can remember if I’ve heard it before recently) or what’s quoted as “by Leo G”. Your posts are mostly filled with things already talked about so it’s not particularly worth my time to read…unless you’re discussing things I wrote.

Are you discussing things I wrote? Or are you just throwing in your old 2 cents and I don’t have to bother reading?

CharrGirl.7896:

GuardianOMS.8067:

You can answer all your questions by remembering that males are the intended audience for these games.

What if I told you that not all boys are into oversexualized outfits? You’re putting all males in the same bucket. My boyfriend prefers dignified outfits over sexy ones, so does my brother. Inb4 labels.

Lamest argument ever lol

Yup!

My husband and some of my male friends don’t play females because they want impressive armor for them, not skimpy armor. Impressive as in “I’m really WHOOPIN’ GOOD at my job and my amazing armor shows that”, not as in “look at all the gold and ectos I used on it!” not “this armor is so IN UR FACE” not “look how provocative I look”.

It’s not about how expensive the amors are, or how difficult they are to get, but that they give the impression the character must be very good at their job. (Like if you saw someone wearing karate black belt or special forces uniform, you know they must be really good to have gotten there.

And that too, is what I’d love for my female (and male) character. Tired of that feeling that males are people for who they are, and females are pretty toys to look at before being people for who they are.

For example, I link some armors that I think give the feeling that the character is a very skilled person and good at their job (IMO), that they got armor that relates to their work and looks impressive (and sexy too, though not sexist!)

(There are Light armor examples, though I could/should have linked others too. Also, each link shows the particular gender or genders I’m talking about)

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Gallery_of_female_ritualist_Elite_Kurzick_armor
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Gallery_of_female_ritualist_Elite_Imperial_armor
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Gallery_of_female_ritualist_Elite_Luxon_armor
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Gallery_of_female_mesmer_Vabbian_armor
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Elementalist_Obsidian_armor
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Gallery_of_female_ranger_Obsidian_armor
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/File:Ritualist_Deldrimor_armor_m.jpg
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Gallery_of_male_elementalist_Vabbian_armor
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Gallery_of_male_elementalist_Vabbian_armor
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Gallery_of_female_necromancer_Vabbian_armor
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Gallery_of_male_necromancer_Obsidian_armor
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/File:Acolyte_Sousuke_Primeval_armor.jpg
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Gallery_of_female_mesmer_Primeval_armor
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Gallery_of_male_paragon_Primeval_armor

I think these look pretty sexy, impressive for their professions, but not degrading, even the most revealing ones.

Inb4 labels.

Yes, that’s another concern I have that makes people afraid to speak out

(offtopic for this particular post, but I want to add something: )
Another big problem with non-sexualized armors is that they look very plain from the back, which is how you see your character most of the time. Often it’s just a solid one color piece of fabric, sometimes 10% better if I’m being generous. it’s as if Anet makes armors for other people to admire. I want a sexy armor that I can admire (male, in my case, and armor plus body) from the back

Leo G.4501:

lorazcyk.8927:

I wonder if the reason they won’t make sexy males is because 1) they have to appeal to the beefy Conan stereotype that (afaik) men dream of being like, instead of what is actually sexy to women (though I guess some women might like beefy Conan guys), and 2) (afaik) men can’t stand seeing another man in a “adult movies” as they’re better looking than he is, plus he wants to think that woman/women are his only.
So that having male characters be plain-looking is much easier for them to bear? Just wondering because it’s the same deal in American TV (other countries are much better about it)

This is very insightful in how women perceive men and their masculine mentalities. I don’t think men are all that complex either (me being one) but I don’t think men are as simple as you seem to think.

I don’t think they’re that simple, in fact I know that most aren’t, atleast my friends.
In fact it’s quite funny you say “very insightful how WOMEN perceive men”, when these things were told to me by male friends and guys online. (Whether true or not, my friends say they don’t feel that way but guys online say they do)

I’m curious what is the real reason, whether that or other things.

What do you think? (I would have liked / would have been constructive to discussion if you had included this instead of simply attacking me. Though I realize by “I wonder” you must have read it in a snarky tone, but when I wrote it I was thinking more in a curious way, not snarky)

lorazcyk.8927:

For example, I link some armors that I think give the feeling that the character is a very skilled person and good at their job (IMO), that they got armor that relates to their work and looks impressive (and sexy too, though not sexist!)

(There are Light armor examples, though I could/should have linked others too. Also, each link shows the particular gender or genders I’m talking about)

-snip-Long list-snip-

I think these look pretty sexy, impressive for their professions, but not degrading, even the most revealing ones.

Great list. I see your point and I agree with you wholeheartedly.
When choosing the armor that my girls will wear, I usually take into account the personality I made up for them and the lore behind her race (yes, I’m a roleplayer), but more than anything I like them to look powerful.
Granted, the only one that would ever use a skimpy outfit would be my Sylvari, and that’s because I love her bio-luminescence and I hate that most foliage armor does’t gleam with her. I still need a better looking long skirt for my Mesmer, who doesn’t wear skimpy armor.

That isn’t aimed at my posts.

Isn’t it you?
(Sorry, argh!, you’re right! I thought the second quote was from you. It’s from Zeefa)
I probably thought it was you because you said “. For some women, after all, expressing themselves through their clothing is a form of empowerment” which seems to be a silly argument similar to Zeefa, which came across to me (whether right or wrong) as more incentive to have more nearly-nekkid females, like “well, women like sex as a form of empowerment, right, that means we men can benefit by forcing sex on them without consent!” (don’t you say I think that of you or men, I don’t), and also avoided the male side when replying to me and then your notion that a female character can be just as good as a man so a bit of sexy armor won’t hurt her.
And also this:

When everything has to be tiptoeing around sensitivities and possible feelings, you get a sterile and stagnate product.
While I can understand being careful not to offend, that’s far and away from being politically correct imbecile prudes that make a product no one cares about.

Haha, this only applies to male armor, apparently I will add this to my “double standards” post (the one you didn’t read, apparently)

(And I’d like to add: despite the fact mad queen and I have said many times we are not opposed showing skin, only when it’s sexualized only towards females, and also my comment that bikinis are not sexist, only when all male police get to wear proper uniforms and female officers wear bikinis as “uniforms”, which is how we feel the game(s) is.)

Leo G.4501:

Here’s a suggestion: If you have a point to make, just write it. If you have an opinion, just write it.

I did.

If you have to quote something that has already been discussed ages ago to try and make a point, likely you’re just repeating what other people say. You’re not adding anything, you’re retreading.

For you it’s making a point, for me it was simply writing my opinion. Why is your opinion an opinion, but my opinion is “trying to make a point”? Why can’t my opinion also be an opinion too?

You don’t read do you? Here’s one of my posts you failed to read or acknowledge:

Maybe I didn’t see that post over all the constant avoiding of topic and the odd sentiments you’ve expressed about women both in games and in RL, but I’m very glad that you are in favor of skimpy male armors as well. Your support on this is very appreciated :-)

Then learn to stop quoting people when you have something to say that isn’t related to anything anyone is saying.

Gee, you’d think I was the one who started doing it in the first place. I always try to stay on topic unless that person won’t just give up on avoiding the topic and going offtopic (as this post again).
You’d think I wasn’t doing it as a reply to others who did it to my posts over and over, instead of replying to the on topic post. And again in my previous post I tried to steer the thing back on topic so we could have a productive discussion, and again, here we are.

Or learn to clarify what you write.

If something isn’t clear, feel free to ask in the thread or in a PM telling me what isn’t clear so I can come back and improve it. Is it really that hard? Or are you just saying that trying to “one up” or avoid the topic? If you truly meant that you would have sincerely asked me to clarify what I meant, which I would have been more than happy to do.

But the reason the person has talked about is because s/he is trying to make her point about character armor in Gw2, and why that matters so much to him or her….

Which doesn’t need your additional input because I already acknowledge what that person was trying to do. Or do you not understand that you’re basically perpetuating arguments that don’t need it? Or were you expecting people to just ignore what you say because what you’re saying has been said so is inconsequential to the discussion?
.

Yes, because again, after trying over and over to steer the conversation back on topic and having the person only reply to how I say what I say instead of what I actually say about the topic, you are once more talking about how off topic things.

Why read and/or reply if you don’t think my posts are necessary? Block my name or skip it when you see it.

Why would I want to read your posts when all they’re doing is pulling up crap people already resolved in their discussions?

Then why did you?

Since Lv 60 I’ve been transmuting my armor back to student armors, because it seems to me the higher level armor all look like they were designed for a vegas show girl parody of an Ele in my case. I agree with the OP we should all have an oppertunity to express ourselves through our Armor, if s/he wants to wear something skimpy, but reasonably tasteful; cool; but give those of us who would opt for a little more modest/serious visual representation that option too.

BTW the female War in the current Living Content post is wonderful. More like her please. C. And could U please change the damaged armor, there surely are otherways of representing armor twice damaged besides stripping my charactor.

Claudia,
(Half jokingly) Female tax, if you don’t want to be a sexy toy you must buy gems to get transmutation stones ;D

Gabby,
agreed about sylvari skin, right now it’s mostly possible with female light armor, but not for males. I would prefer to play males of any race… not female… but better attention to detail with female armors and in general makes me play female

In particular the sylvari screenshot I attached, I like it on my sylvari as her skin looks part of the armor, but on female norn and human I wouldn’t wear it.

Some of these (with modifications) are skimpy but not to the point of being degrading, I think.

Would like this on scholar or adventurer classes

Anna

Make skirt slightly longer or change it with leggings, then show skin on the sides of her waist, the inner part of her arms (the part that’s hidden from view when your arms are close to your body); to the sides above and below her knee

Another … Extend the gray fabric at the hips so it looks like a skirt (so it doesn’t show her privates when she runs or swims), expose the sides of her waist, remove the red metal above her knee.

Cover leg halfway down to the thigh, add bracelets as the glove armor, make the red thing over her breast become the shoulder armor

Scholar (mages still need some protection! Shoulder, breast, and boots made of leather or lightweight metal.

We already have something similar to this, but expose her legs, and all of the arm below the puffy shoulder. Could also open the collar (keep it round) to expose the neck, below the collarbone, and the shoulder until it reaches the puffy shoulders.

Yet another, turned out similar to the modified one above to what I described This is so awesome! (/me runs to the closet to grab sewing machine and make it right away)

To make this revealing, remove leggings and add a short frilly skirt (please make it so her baby-expeller opening isn’t on my face when I swim or run up a hill).

Revealing but not indecent

Could expose her belly, move her metal belt down to her hips. Could make her jacket shorter like a bolero, with no “cape”.

See, with have this for males with heritage armor, I would have loved this for a female
Keep the hood, shoulders and sleeves, but completely expose the back (no sideboob), yet have cloth cover the front (like a halter top, but expose all of the back shoulders to hips).
Make chestpiece/coat extent into shorts (live overalls) instead of a butt cape. Make the leg armor piece be thighs with shorts underwear (boxers).

This modified armor would go great with Noble boots or starter boots.

“Elegantly casual”http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121028080557/fireemblem/images/0/02/Fire_Emblem_10_Ena_Portrait.png
Add a headpiece like this
Change dress into halter top, so it shows all of the back (keep the collar). Optionally remove sleeves, leaving only a wide strap on her shoulder.
Swap leggings with a short skirt that has chiffon/frilly detail on the sides so it sticks out slightly, or this
Another option is to completely shorten the dress so the flaps only cover the skirt half way (prevents freaky butt-cape syndrome if you do it like this)

Works for all with slight modifications
Keep puffy pants but make them into shorts/capris. Remove the boots for light and medium classes for shoes or sandals. Change boots to plate armor or metal sandals for the heavies.
Feather headpiece is perfect for light or medium armor. Make this for heavy armor and have the metal feathers meld into real feathers as you reach the tips.
Add a metal “belt” for the heavies hanging from the hip.
Gloves need a pretty bracelet over one of them.
The arm: Keep it like that for heavies. Mediums: a “tube sleeve” cut at the wrist and at the top, make it with a tribal theme. Lights: make it like the female vabbian ritualist upper sleeves in gw1.

@lorazcyk.8927, I was thinking, can’t I be an Elegantly Sexy Toy?
and then you posted those lovely pic’s speaking exactly to the point I wanted to make. Thankyou for sharing those images. C.

i wish same fate will happen to you someday, where there will never be a place where you can actually achieve something different than preaching, or an organization that actually can do something about it.

when this happens, than you are entitled to complain about complainers

Male edition:

For adventurer
keep everything but the pink fabric shirt, exposing his belly and hips to show most of his hip bones (the V shaped bones). Change the metal plates into leather if you want.
For a scholar, do the same and change metal plates into fabric and/or jewelry (such as a cowl made of jewelry and airy scarf, then semi-transparent fabric on his chest with two silk/fabric “belts” covering from his shoulder to the bottom of the “shirt” over his nipple.
(Wish I could still draw so I could show it to you, but my hands, fingers and wrists are kinda busted so I can’t anymore)

Ooooh! Remove his shirt while still keeping the straps on his chest and arms, and you’re golden!

Quite skimpy armor (the blue armor) (keep the furr)
Yes please. Here’s more of him:
1
2
3

Guy in the middle
Adventurer class. expose lower waist to show most of the hip (V) bones, open pants on the side from top to bottom, use buckles to tie it together.

Every time in Gw there’s an exposed armor for men’s belly, it ends just below the navel, W.T.H? I want to see way, way below his navel, stopping just as it would show his privates.

For scholars
Remove all plate on his arms except for the elbow joint (like elbow … jewelry)
Glove armor slot becomes rings on all fingers on one hand, then only on the thumb on the other had, on one elbow remove the “joint armor” and instead add a fabric wrist-warmer going up to his upper arm (a long glove with the hand cut off)
Shoulder piece becomes the necklace.
Chestpiece becomes a bit of airy fabric hanging from his neck like a bandana but hanging from a gold metal strip like the gold belt in the picture.
Remove leg metal plate, keep knee decoration as part of the “boot armor”

Cut the upper part of the coat in half diagonally where the breast is, to expose his breast, shoulder and arms
Switch pants for a “skirt”… I mean

Keep the gold bar on his belly, remove fabric shirt
Have shoulder piece be a gold necklace made of bars (smaller than his belly) that goes all the way up and around his neck to his chin.

(Well, these are all kinda similar, but for more ideas…)
Expose belly, wrap the gray fabric from right shoulder to left hip, over the armor, while the left upper torso and the right lower torso and hip are exposed
Completely remove shoulder and arm armor on left side. Consider making left side of the armor and right side on the back free of bulky armor, while making the armor “stay on” by having a strip of metal run around his body.

Raesloz
If you think my post is condescending, well, apparently it takes one to known one.

And I already adressed your post in “more nice girl mode” if that’s something that appeals to your manly desires more than sarcasm. If you want a graphic story in nice girl mode I can do that too.

As it stands now, I’m one of the last few people in the last few pages trying to discuss what kind of revealing is my kind of revealing in a thread titled ‘more skimpy armor please?’

Oh boy, I laughed. Even my husband on the other side of the house woke up.
Good for you? Other people also posted photos, myself included, however, the talk relating to skimpy armors is still relevant to the thread as it raises concerns on it.
If you want to keep your eyes closed about that, you’re more than welcome to, it’s perfectly fine, it’s your choice, it’s only your wife, sisters, and daughters who would suffer or benefit from it, not me, so it’s up to you, not me.
Many people choose to stay blind and not think about a lot of the world’s harsh issues. That’s one way to go about it.
However, some of us don’t feel satisfied with ourselves as a person if we do that.
You can stay blind if you want, but don’t discourage those of us who chose otherwise.

I already replied “less condescending” here if that’s something you’re interested in.
https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/suggestions/More-Skimpy-Armor-Please-Merged/page/11#post2027674

And by the way? That “condescending sarcastic” graphic story? I wasn’t doing it to be funny or condescending at all, I did it to show you how your post was offensive to women who this issue matters to, and it was an extreme graphic example to bring you to your senses: how things will be if we don’t speak up. (Read the other post I linked, I guess)

I’m sure you like those things, like you said, however, remember you are not alone in this world. If you’ve ever loved a girl or a woman, love, not lust, think about my little story as if it were this girl in it, doing those things in front of a bunch of random guys you don’t know. And they love it. Or maybe think it’s your mom (if you love her and care for her) or daughter. And all day it’s like this for her, every day… does it seriously not bother you? Doesn’t your heart twist in agony as you think of what she might feel like? Now think of us women who have to experience that sort of stuff in games and the media, pretty much all the time. Gw2 atleast is not that bad, but the clothes, sounds, and animations, to start with, are still like this for female characters IMO.
I’m not saying it’s wrong to enjoy those things as a man, but that it’s present everywhere so it becomes suffocating for me, as a woman.

Like Amadan said, unless you experience something similar that strongly affects your life day to day, please don’t dismiss us. Ignore us? Sure, don’t read if you don’t want to. But don’t tell us we’ve not right to speak about it.

@ Amadan
/me reads signature and sniffles a little
<3

So I’m gone for two pages and this has turned out a little silly

Let’s rephrase: I’m a gender egalitarian, not a feminist. This means that nothing I say has the intent of being sexist against either sex/gender/what have you. This, to me, is a better viewpoint to take than the feminist viewpoint of solely abolishing sexism against women, especially when some feminists justify that viewpoint as follows: By abolishing sexism against women, men profit too. While I’m sure there’s some merit to that, that does not in the least justify feminism’s blindness for the other 50%.

But anyway, that was a little ramble on ideologies. Something for feminists to chew on while I carry on with the topic at hand: Armour in video games. Actually, I’ll narrow it down a little: Armour in Guild Wars 2. I want nothing to do with other video games, because I have little experience with other games, and they really shouldn’t matter when debating armour in GW2.

So what’s the phemonenom, then? In light armour, females get armour that reveals significantly more skin than males. In medium and heavy armour, things tend to be a little more equal, but neither of the sexes get any revealing armour.

So here’s the question I want to tackle first: Is revealing armour “sexual” or “offensive”? No, neither. This is and has always been a fantasy setting, and revealing armour is one of the archetypes within the fantasy genre. This normally wouldn’t cause a lot of hassle if we saw men walking around in loincloths, but people tend to be more sensitive about women if they’re portrayed as such. How comes? They draw comparisons to real life where there’s a stigma on skimpily clothed girls. While I have some doubts about whether society forces these girls to dress as such, society frowns upon the phenomenom. But there is nothing inherently wrong with revealing clothes in fantasy settings.

But here’s the issue at hand I’ve described earlier. Women – and women almost exclusively – get access to revealing clothes. This is sexist on the basis that one gender is differentiated in comparison to the other. Feminists will have you believe that only women suffer from any form of sexism, and that this is obviously the same case with this scenario. I kind of don’t believe that. I believe that both sexes suffer losses from this phenomenom. While women are sexualised to some extent, men are desexualised. Neither of the two is ideal. Some women aren’t comfortable when sexualised, and the desexualisation of men isn’t very pretty either. This turns men into asexual robots, and that’s rather bland.

So here’s the solution proposed by feminists: Remove revealing armour (or in some cases; remove sexually oriented armour, while keeping armour that even though it shows skin, stays fashionable). Surely it’s the wrongdoer, because it objectifies women in relation to men. This assumption is… Meh. I mean, sure, we can go ahead and remove revealing armour, but the problem is that there’s a demand for it. While one person may not like such armour, there certainly is a demand for it. And though I truly hate economy, one does not simply disagree with the market unless it becomes absolutely ethically unacceptable. Putting video game characters in funny dresses isn’t exactly ethically unacceptable, though.

So here’s what should happen instead, seeing as revealing armour isn’t going to go away. First, make revealing armour tasteful. Winged armour – while very elegant to some degree – isn’t exactly appropriate. Tier 3 human armour (light) features a bra (imeanwhat). Guild Wars 1 had a lot of revealing armour sets that were very fashionable, even though some of them showed more skin than some of the unfashionable items in GW2 (particularly ritualist armour, which was godly). So let’s take a hint from GW1.

Second, if an armour set is revealing for one gender, make it (almost) equally revealing for the other gender. I don’t want to penalise femininity or masculinity, but a balance ought to be found between the two when designing a single armour set for both genders. Everybody benefits from this, because it immediately stops the levels of sexism (both genders are treated equally), and stimulates sexualisation for both genders (and therefore stops desexualisation of men). The gladiator armour set in GW2 does this fairly well, but GW1 did this better once more, especially when looking at paragon and ritualist armour.

Third, make sure there’s a balance between revealing armour and non-revealing armour. Not everybody likes revealing armour, or likes being sexualised. That’s okay! I can imagine that entirely. And these people should be provided with their options, too. And assuming point 2 is taken into account, hopefully that’d get rid of the assumption that revealing armour is created on the premise of sexism. These non-revealing armour sets in turn desexualise women, for I do very well realise that women’s sex has been abnormally exaggerated, and a breakaway isn’t uncalled for.

Fourth, while not a necessity, consider an armour’s functionality. This will remain a fantasy genre, and armour in the Guild Wars series is known to be more of a fashion and aesthetic thing than anything else, but for most armour sets, functionality should at least be considered. It’s perfectly cool if there are some oddly non-functional armour sets, but they should be the odd ones out. There are some bad perpetrators of this in the market.

So what has Guild Wars 2 got right? Well, overall, we have a lot of non-revealing armour sets. That’s good, but I’m sure a better balance between revealing and non-revealing armour can be found. The vast majority of armour sets is functional, so hooray. Topping that, most revealing sets are fairly tasteful, with some exceptions here and there. But tastefulness is rather subjective, so I’m sure a middle path can be found (some people find everything that shows an inch of skin untasteful, and some people don’t mind buttnakedness. Let’s find middle ground indeed). The true problem that remains is the dimorphism between men and women. Men are still entirely clad for the majority of sets in which women aren’t entirely clad. This needs to be addressed, for it’s hurtful to both sexes. To you feminists out there: Don’t take that sentence offensively. I recognise the hurt to the female gender, but to ignore male hurt in the spirit of alleviating women’s suffering is a bit sexist to say the least.

I’m gone for one minute and someone posts something silly.

Ruby, that was extremely off-topic (the first), offensive, and these supposedly "feminists’ have already addressed your points and misconceptions, and I’d like to share some fantasy for you to chew on:
http://womenfighters.tumblr.com/

One more feminist-accuser or PMS post and I invite people to report that person to get a nice big juicy ban.

Please keep that in mind. You don’t have to insult people to have a conversation. You could just… you know, have a conversation without insults.

“While playing Guild Wars 2, you must respect the rights of others and their rights to play and enjoy the Game. To this end, you may not defraud, harass, threaten, embarrass or cause distress and/or unwanted attention to other players. This includes posting insulting, offensive, or abusive comments about players, repeatedly sending unwanted messages, reporting players maliciously, attacking a player based on race, sexual orientation, religion, heritage, etc.

Hate speech is not tolerated."

Though you raise some good points, again… please stop attacking and insulting other players based on their gender, and/or religion and heritage?

Explain to me how that was off-topic, offensive or even filled with misconceptions.

And yes, I’ve seen that site. And no, I don’t care for it, for it’s inherently sexist for solely focusing on women. I’m a gender egalitarian, not a feminist.

… What. Okay, I’m getting multiple messages from the bolded points in the quote on the rules.

First: Disagreeing with feminism is hate speech?
Second: I’m not harassing or insulting anyone. If you thought “chew” was offensive, then know that “chewing on something” means giving something some deep thought.
Third: I’m not attacking anyone based on religion, sex, race or what have you.

I’m disagreeing with people based on their ideology. That’s debating, not hating.

edit: I’m not going to start an edit wars. Please address my questions in a new post. I do not in the least see how on Earth I’ve been any of the things you’ve just accused me of.

@Amadan:
And how is that relevant?
From your signature, I assume you have a penchant for males. It doesn’t make your post any relevant to what I’m addressing.

One Google Search for “Woman Equality Organization” *reveal*s:
National Organization for Women
UN Women

If United Nations is not “organizational” enough, I suppose I’ve learnt something

@loraz
Apparently, someone cannot detect sarcasm

And apparently, someone’s lazy enough to decide to not take this matter to… oh, I don’t know, United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women.

And apparently, someone clearly thinks that video game is actually reality. Guess what? I play Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, that game brings troublemaking black people. Does that mean I LOVE it when black people make trouble? Does that mean I LOVE to shoot law enforcers dead when trying to capture me? Does that mean I LOVE to hijack a car and drive it to a tree? Does that mean I LOVE to irresponsibly go to a gun shop and start buying heat-seeking missile launchers to destroy tax-funded police choppers?

And Callfield of Battleduty Modern of Honor series portrays Russians as clever, rich, and vengeful people trying to nuke America to death, using all sorts of Middle Eastern stereotypes at every possible turn. I play it. Does that mean I LOVE to see Russians threatening the world and launching nukes just because? Does that mean I LOVE to shoot people dead at point blank range? Because your point seems to be that: “Oh my! This man wants more sexy clothings on women! That means its the case in reality!”

Unlike some, I know where video games take place: in a world that is not reality. I precisely play video games to fulfill fantasies I know will and should never take place in the real world. I know right and wrong, and I’m not the kind of person that blames GTA a kid played one morning instead of bad parenting or poisonous expired jams.

But I also know when to retreat. The Ouroboros of women’s fate that I’ve mentioned has begun. It will never end because it’s a ouroboros, and I’d rather go play the game instead of trying to have fun in a futile thread.

Do I have to? My person isn’t so keen on repetitive actions. Unless it’s shredding paper, I looove that and could do it for hours on end.

You have to give me a rational explanation on how I am any of the things you’ve quite bluntly accused me of.

Rubykuby.3427:

You have to give me a rational explanation on how I am any of the things you’ve quite bluntly accused me of.

I would like to read a rational answer also, as I think you are one of the people here who actually are making sense.

…….

kitten all this. Why don’t we just go the tf2 route and just have more HATS!!!

(btw you all need therepy)

lorazcyk.8927:

(Sorry, argh!, you’re right! I thought the second quote was from you. It’s from Zeefa)
I probably thought it was you because you said “. For some women, after all, expressing themselves through their clothing is a form of empowerment” which seems to be a silly argument

How is it a silly argument? Why would you demean a statement if it has been shown in the past to be true on the simple grounds that the opposite would be disempowering? No, the statement has nothing to do with being half naked either, it’s simply speaking of women and giving them the power of choice.

Choice is huge, if you don’t know. Even in a free-type society, you’re often disallowed to choose. Your career? You do what they tell you to do, you dress how they tell you, etc. In other countries, there are even fewer choices. Perhaps you’re taking for granted the choices you have? And as has been argued in relation to the topic, female characters have many choices in style while men have fewer and more similar styles.

(And I’d like to add: despite the fact mad queen and I have said many times we are not opposed showing skin, only when it’s sexualized only towards females, and also my comment that bikinis are not sexist, only when all male police get to wear proper uniforms and female officers wear bikinis as “uniforms”, which is how we feel the game(s) is.)

This is a strawman.

No one’s asking for, NO ONE
I repeat NO. ONE. is asking for more dimorphism in armor. At least not how you’re speaking of it. Why bring up bikini police uniforms for females only when no one has been asking for it? That’s just perpetuating arguments that don’t need to be rustled. But here I am, trying to get you to understand that some people like to compromise and a few have compromised in the viewpoint of the suggestion over the course of its pages.

Maybe I didn’t see that post over all the constant avoiding of topic and the odd sentiments you’ve expressed about women both in games and in RL, but I’m very glad that you are in favor of skimpy male armors as well. Your support on this is very appreciated :-)

I haven’t expressed odd sentiments about women in the real world. Do not create false circumstances. That’s considered lying.

And you’ve joined the conversation late. You’re supporting my views more than the other way around when regarding male armor variance.

If something isn’t clear, feel free to ask in the thread or in a PM telling me what isn’t clear so I can come back and improve it. Is it really that hard?

Don’t respect you enough to spend that effort.

Why read and/or reply if you don’t think my posts are necessary?

Because when you quote someone, it’s implied you’re speaking to whoever you quote.

Or did you not know that? I’m talking to you because you’re talking to me. If you’re not talking directly to whoever you quote, simply saying such is all that’s needed before you go breaking apart their posts.

lorazcyk.8927:

Please keep that in mind. You don’t have to insult people to have a conversation. You could just… you know, have a conversation without insults.

You do realize you’re doing the same thing, yes? You call people’s arguments and opinions silly, you dismiss them in a childish manner, you try to back your statements with “because my husband” rather than something substance to the topic, then you basically wag the threat of banning in people’s faces.

I can definitely get behind someone who is being bullied through PMs or in-game and help ban the harassers, but instigating flames in the way you are to get trolls to send you angry PMs isn’t something I’m getting behind (nor standing against).

Also, we here (at least I hope we here) aren’t harassing you through PMs. Don’t try bullying us with your ban threats then.

Leo, the petty thing is that I didn’t actually insult anybody other than challenge opinions/ideologies She’s not doing “the same thing”. She’s ironically doing exactly what she falsely accused me of.

Well I guess that’s what I mean. I meant to say “you’re doing what you’re saying” or something like that >_>

Leo G.4501:

Why bring up bikini police uniforms for females only when no one has been asking for it?

As I understood it, he/she brought up this argument, because some of you used the argument that “women wear sexy things in real life, so why not have them in a game”.

The bikini police uniforms argument illustrates perfectly the contrast between wearing something sexy, and wearing something offensive. Its exactly this situation where one gender wears a functional outfit (armor for males), and one gender is made to wear something sexualized (armor for females), that is an offensive case of sexism against women. Some kinds of outfits are not something you would wear at work. This argument pretty much establishes why some of the more sexualized armors are offensive. Sure, women sometimes wear something sexy in real life. But that doesn’t excuse highly sexualized armors.

If we started dressing our female police officers in bikini outfits, and made that their standard uniform, dang straight they would be offended, and rightly so. It would even be offensive if they could choose from an assemble of uniforms, one being a bikini. Putting this in a real life example illustrates why some people find these sort of skimpy outfits offensive. I think it was a pretty good example, you don’t have to take it literally.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Putting this in a real life example illustrates why some people find these sort of skimpy outfits offensive. I think it was a pretty good example, you don’t have to take it literally.

But it’s not a real life example, it’s a fabricated analogy. It also doesn’t touch on the fact that there is choice involved.

So what if there is a bikini police officer uniform? If the female police officers are given the choice to not wear it, it won’t get worn and then that’s the end of the analogy. The end.

Care to attempt to further clarify her point for her? Personally, I think she just started spouting inconsequential examples to cover the fact no one is actually arguing against her viewpoint so she’s creating an opponent to attack.

@MQM Why are you again stressing the bikini argument when nobody in this entire thread has ever brought it up with full support? It’s as if you’re satisfying your own need to reassure that bikini outfits are offensive, rather than contributing to the point at hand. The point at hand is that we want to do away with sexual dimorphism. And not in the “haha you males can wear wear skimpy armour and see how you like it” way either.

The weirdest thing of all is that most people in this thread agree with the four points of action I’ve brought up in my earlier post. It’s just that the feminist-aligned folks want to keep stressing how much sexual objectification sucks for women, and how much everybody should be sorry for women, when that’s not the point. The point is that we want more diverse armour, not more sexually diverse armour (i.e., different on the premise of gender).

But you keep stressing how very offensive some armour can be, when that’s hardly actually even the case in Guild Wars 2 (and don’t you dare bring up other games again, because that’s once again not the point). Sure, there are some armour sets that could be called distasteful, but they’re in the extreme minority. Are we calling for more distasteful armour? Not at all, which you would know if you read the very first post in this thread.

As a matter of fact, the amount of whining from the feminist side of things is wearing me down. I know you feel strongly about this, but no single amount of whining will get you anywhere. Propose solutions instead. I’ve proposed countless solutions in my posts, but none of them actually got any feedback. Instead, I simply got complaints thrown at me for some of the surrounding bits of text.

We get that there’s some pretty sexist kitten in the world, and that women are often victimised by that very sexism, but that’s not the point in this thread. Sexism enrages me as much as it enrages you, though I take sexism against men very dearly too. But this is simply not a soapbox for anti-sexist complaints. This is a thread on the diversity of armour in Guild Wars 2, so let’s keep it at that.

Leo G.4501:

But it’s not a real life example, it’s a fabricated analogy.

All analogies are fabricated. That’s the point of an analogy.

Leo G.4501:

It also doesn’t touch on the fact that there is choice involved.

Yes it does. Or at least, it does as I put it. But that has everything to do with understanding the analogy.

Leo G.4501:

So what if there is a bikini police officer uniform? If the female police officers are given the choice to not wear it, it won’t get worn and then that’s the end of the analogy. The end.

No it isn’t. Suppose we turned this thing around. All female police officers get normal uniforms to choose from, but male officers get to choose between, normal, or a speedo. Is that offensive? Hell yes. Its not speedos themselves that are offensive, but the sexist way in which one gender is treated.

The point of any analogy, is to explain in a different but similar context, why we have this opinion about the subject. A lot of you argued that women should not be offended, because they have more choice than men, so really it should be men that are offended. The police officer example shows just how ludicrous this line of thought is.

Rubykuby.3427:

@MQM Why are you again stressing the bikini argument when nobody in this entire thread has ever brought it up with full support? It’s as if you’re satisfying your own need to reassure that bikini outfits are offensive, rather than contributing to the point at hand.

You are missing the point entirely. It’s an analogy. It’s not really about bikinis, it’s about the difference between choice of wardrobe, and a sexist choice of wardrobe. I was defending the analogy, because it is a good analogy. It explains exactly why women find skimpy outfits in MMO’s offensive, even though no one is forcing them to wear them.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

All analogies are fabricated. That’s the point of an analogy.

Nope.

It’s a cognitive comparison (among other things). You can make up a cognitive comparison that has no basis in reality and then that just alienates the original example.

Here’s a similar comparison:

Desexualization in sewing machine manufacturers limits there market. How sewing machines are marketed, they only aim at a niche market of old women, middle aged house wives, professional tailors/seamstresses and leatherworkers. If they market to the teen crowd or even the young boy niche market, you could greatly increase the potential customer share. Put some flame decals or bikini babes on some sleek black sewing machines and more teen boys will buy sewing machines!

Now I can completely dismiss the fact that not all boys are interested in black, flames, guns and bikini babes or that teens rarely sew things compared to, say, people who do so as a hobby. It makes the point though that sewing machines aren’t marketed to younger people specifically and should…but it also dismisses every logical string that keeps it linked to reality while doing so.

No it isn’t. Suppose we turned this thing around. All female police officers get normal uniforms to choose from, but male officers get to choose between, normal, or a speedo. Is that offensive? Hell yes. Its not speedos themselves that are offensive, but the sexist way in which one gender is treated.

Here’s why the analogy doesn’t work:
1. Police officers don’t GET a choice in what they wear.
2. They wear what they wear for hugely different reasons for why we wear armor on our characters in a video game.
3. Most importantly, police officers wear their uniforms and badges because it comes with respect of being an authority figure. A bikini uniform flies in the face of having the uniform being there in the first place.

I could also just not take the analogy seriously, like you propose, which is sort of exactly what I did. lorazcyk made an analogy that is easily attacked as it’s extremely sexist and I’m attacking the same analogy for it being stupid.

@ Mad Queen

I just cannot comprehend in my own mind why you would dedicate so much time to this thread (which I suspect is over a days work now) in order to fight for a cause which you’ve still yet to state.

What are you hoping to achieve? People have asked you this question in order to spark debate numerous times and you’ve failed to respond making your argument meaningless and simply antagonistic towards others.

Guild Wars 2 is probably one of the most ethically sound and sex friendly fantasy games on the market.

The solution is plain and simple, if you don’t like revealing armour don’t wear it. If it upsets you to the point where you feel sick and angry seeing others wear it then why even bother playing the game? By playing the game your supporting the developers and those who enjoy it.

Everything you have said so far is based on your own opinion, that of which fragments of are shared by a handful of others. I think the gear looks ‘cool’ not ‘sexist’. That’s my opinion and I’m not about to dedicate the rest of May in order to address how strongly I feel about what a great job I think the devs did. It’s pointless and a waste of time. This is a fantasy game for poops sake. FANTASY!

I can’t imagine how upset I’d be to come home after a hard days work to find that my outfit in guild wars had been edited to hide skin. The one kitten place I get to zone out and do and wear what I want.

Why don’t you create your own game that follows your own ideologies? You can use that as an example for all the other developers out there.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Rubykuby.3427:

@MQM Why are you again stressing the bikini argument when nobody in this entire thread has ever brought it up with full support? It’s as if you’re satisfying your own need to reassure that bikini outfits are offensive, rather than contributing to the point at hand.

You are missing the point entirely. It’s an analogy. It’s not really about bikinis, it’s about the difference between choice of wardrobe, and a sexist choice of wardrobe. I was defending the analogy, because it is a good analogy. It explains exactly why women find skimpy outfits in MMO’s offensive, even though no one is forcing them to wear them.

I’m missing the point? As the poster above me pointed out, it’s you who is missing the point entirely. Bikinis have nothing to do with the topic, and you’re doing nothing other than arguing the pointless for your own satisfaction. That supposed analogy of bikinis means nothing to us, because it’s both unrealistic and unrelated to the topic at hand.

Maybe if you replied to my four points of improvement in my taller post on this page, that’d be a contribution to the debate. But instead you argue about nitpicky things that really mean nothing to this thread. I’ve even gone so far as debating these tiny little things with you a few pages back until I simply couldn’t cope with the amount of whining anymore. And I’ve not come back to continue hearing whining in relation to sexism against women, which this thread has little or nothing to do with, even though the broader subject very much intrigues me.

So either respond to my points of improvement, or come up with your own as the person above me suggested, but don’t come in here to whine at every string of text you can quote for your own crusade of combatting sexism against women.

Rubykuby.3427:

I’m missing the point? As the poster above me pointed out, it’s you who is missing the point entirely. Bikinis have nothing to do with the topic,

It’s an ANALOGY! We are not discussing bikinis sheesh. We are discussing choice of outfits.

Rubykuby.3427:

and you’re doing nothing other than arguing the pointless for your own satisfaction. That supposed analogy of bikinis means nothing to us, because it’s both unrealistic and unrelated to the topic at hand.

It means nothing to you, because you refuse to understand the analogy. Instead you take it literally, and then yell out that no one is discussing bikinis. That is not what the analogy is about! Analogies are not meant to be taken literally. They are examples to try and get a point across.

I’m honestly shocked that after such a long debate, you’d still pretend that I didn’t explain why I’m against skimpy armors. I think I’ve explained it pretty clearly in so many diverse ways, using analogies, and not using analogies, and you still don’t get it. I’m wondering what it takes to allow you to see this matter from someone else’s point of view.

Rubykuby.3427:

Maybe if you replied to my four points of improvement in my taller post on this page, that’d be a contribution to the debate. But instead you argue about nitpicky things that really mean nothing to this thread.

That is a pretty dishonest argument. You made your remarks for improvements not in direct reply to me, but to everyone in the topic. So to then chastise me for not responding to them is completely unfair. I simply didn’t particularly agree or disagree with some of your points.

Rubykuby.3427:

I’ve even gone so far as debating these tiny little things with you a few pages back until I simply couldn’t cope with the amount of whining anymore. And I’ve not come back to continue hearing whining in relation to sexism against women, which this thread has little or nothing to do with, even though the broader subject very much intrigues me.

If it honestly intrigues you, then perhaps you should be more open to understanding the views of people that disagree with you.

Rubykuby.3427:

So either respond to my points of improvement, or come up with your own as the person above me suggested, but don’t come in here to whine at every string of text you can quote for your own crusade of combatting sexism against women.

It’s a crusade now? I spot skimpy outfits for women (that exposes their underwear), point out the blatant sexism, and then its a crusade? The only crusade I’m noticing here, is one of personal attacks.

Caatalyst.7289:

@ Mad Queen
What are you hoping to achieve? People have asked you this question in order to spark debate numerous times and you’ve failed to respond making your argument meaningless and simply antagonistic towards others.

I’m hoping to achieve exactly the opposite of what you said below this statement, namely:

Caatalyst.7289:

The solution is plain and simple, if you don’t like revealing armour don’t wear it. If it upsets you to the point where you feel sick and angry seeing others wear it then why even bother playing the game? By playing the game your supporting the developers and those who enjoy it.

No! This is exactly not the solution to the problem. It’s the equivalent of saying, you don’t like it, then go away! I’m a customer. A lot of women are customers, and we like playing these games. So what we should do… what we should ALL do… is encourage change. Make game designers aware that they should break away from this sexist depiction of women.

I see a lot of ppl at the beach wearing bikinis – should I be offended? Cause they are wearing it and I’m there in jeans.

I like ice scream

Torca.5162:

I see a lot of ppl at the beach wearing bikinis – should I be offended? Cause they are wearing it and I’m there in jeans.

I like ice scream

We already addressed that point. There is nothing offensive about wearing a bikini at the beach. I’m not against showing skin, honestly I’m no prude. I’m against the female stereotype that is blatantly on display in so many MMO’s. And yes GW2 is very female friendly. But it does have some of those silly sexist outfits. Why do we accept that?

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

And yes GW2 is very female friendly. But it does have some of those silly sexist outfits. Why do we accept that?

-shrug-
The only reason I accept it is because it’s already in the game. Removing it won’t do, and changing it to something completely different would leave the individual that like those armors in a bad place.

But then I’m not so much hating on the outfits for how they ‘harm’ women, rather those armors just don’t look that good.

Oh finally. You’ve stated what you want to achieve. “Make game designers aware that they should break away from this sexist depiction of women”. I mean what? Guild Wars 2 is the wrong game for that, seeing as how this game barely crosses the line on what you find “sexist”.

That aside, you’re not against the “sexist depiction of women”, you’re against “sexually appealing depictions of women”. Please stop abusing the term “sexism” like it’s the kitten child of a widow. Sexism is discrimination on the premise of gender, and that’s all there is to it.

“But women are treated in a sexist manner, because men don’t get the same treatment!” you may scream and shout. Which I agree with to some extent, even though that statement blatantly ignores that men are therefore in turn discriminated against as well. But fine, let’s have it your way, women are discriminated against. So what do I suggest? Let’s treat men and women the same. Let’s give both tasteful revealing armour choices (a suggestion you’ve never made a comment on, seeing as you’d rather hold a tirade on how women are currently abused than do anything constructive).

But you disagree with this. It’s not that you’d mind skimpy armour on men (you’re in favour of that. “See how you like that filthy men!”), it’s that you severely mind skimpy armour on women. There is no single argument in the world that could possibly make you condone skimpy armour on women, even if men received the same treatment. Because whenever you see skimpy armour on women, your mind quite figuratively goes haywire, and you want to scream and shout sexism, sexual objectification, sexualisation, eroticism and all the big words in protest of what’s being displayed on your screen. Never mind sexism, you’re against anything sexually oriented in video games, but only if it puts women in a supposed bad light.

What you’re ignoring entirely, is that you do not represent women, and that you do not represent the silent majority. You represent feminism at its core, and all you’re doing is doing feminists a giant favour. There have been heaps of women in this topic who have told you repeatedly that they don’t mind the current depiction of women in video games, and are quite in favour of both revealing and non-revealing armour sets. You’re imagining a majority that supports your viewpoint who doesn’t open their mouths. But tell you what, if such a majority existed, the sexual depiction of women out in the real world would’ve long stopped. As a matter of fact, if such a majority existed, pornography wouldn’t exist. “But it’s solely male oppression that allows these things to exist!” you might resist. I’d call you a nutter. Male oppression is a myth.

Besides, this is not the thread for your not-a-crusade against sexual (not sexist, I’ll remind you, please stop sexually abusing that term already) depiction of women in video games. This is the thread that calls for more diversity of armour in Guild Wars 2 for both sexes alike, no sexism involved. If you want to combat sexualisation of women, open a new thread and call it “Please Stop Sexual Depiction of Women in Guild Wars 2”.

Rubykuby.3427:

Oh finally. You’ve stated what you want to achieve. “Make game designers aware that they should break away from this sexist depiction of women”. I mean what? Guild Wars 2 is the wrong game for that, seeing as how this game barely crosses the line on what you find “sexist”.

I stated that a long time ago, and several times even, but maybe you missed it (I’m sure other posters can confirm this for you).

The reason that it barely crosses the line is all the more reason to convince Anet to not cross the line at all. If you’re going to make a tasteful game, stick with it. I could go on a whole tirade against a game like Lollypop Chainsaw, but what would the point of that be? Its a game specifically marketed towards men, and the whole premise of that game is to poke fun at its blatant exploitative nature. I’d rather criticize a game I like, so they can make it even better.

Rubykuby.3427:

That aside, you’re not against the “sexist depiction of women”, you’re against “sexually appealing depictions of women”. Please stop abusing the term “sexism” like it’s the kitten child of a widow. Sexism is discrimination on the premise of gender, and that’s all there is to it.

You are confusing your terminology in regards to this discussion. I’m addressing the issues of an offensive stereotype against women, which appears in the form of sexual depictions. I’m not against sexual depictions. I’m against the difference in which women are depicted from men. And this is a clear case of sexism, women are portrayed differently. It conforms to a persistent negative stereotype of women in video games. You really want to argue semantics here?

Rubykuby.3427:

“But women are treated in a sexist manner, because men don’t get the same treatment!” you may scream and shout. Which I agree with to some extent, even though that statement blatantly ignores that men are therefore in turn discriminated against as well.

I already destroyed that argument with the speedo example. If one gender is being depicted as a negative stereotype, its not the other gender that should be equally offended. I do not understand how you could possibly defend that idea and keep a straight face.

Here, I’ll give another example. We both take part in a play. I get handed my awesome necro costume, and you get handed a speedo. Would I have any right to be offended by the fact that I didn’t get to wear the speedo?

Rubykuby.3427:

Let’s treat men and women the same. Let’s give both tasteful revealing armour choices (a suggestion you’ve never made a comment on, seeing as you’d rather hold a tirade on how women are currently abused than do anything constructive).

I never commented on it, because I agreed with you. Hey, if you want me to comment on something specific, just ask. But you can’t honestly expect me to respond to every thing everyone says. There’s so many points being made in this topic, so of course I pick the ones I specifically disagree with, or have something to say about. This is really an unfair argument, admit it.

Rubykuby.3427:

There is no single argument in the world that could possibly make you condone skimpy armour on women, even if men received the same treatment.

This is the perfect example of a strawman argument. I think everyone can confirm that I’ve already blatantly stated that I wouldn’t mind attractive outfits on both men and women. I’m all for equality. But right now there isn’t. So I attack the inequality.

And you can argue that men should have equal skimpy options, that’s fair. But the other side of this argument would be to question sexualized outfits to begin with.

Rubykuby.3427:

Because whenever you see skimpy armour on women, your mind quite figuratively goes haywire, and you want to scream and shout sexism, sexual objectification, sexualisation, eroticism and all the big words in protest of what’s being displayed on your screen. Never mind sexism, you’re against anything sexually oriented in video games, but only if it puts women in supposed a bad light.

Help, help! We’re being oppressed!

Leo G.4501:

-shrug-
The only reason I accept it is because it’s already in the game. Removing it won’t do, and changing it to something completely different would leave the individual that like those armors in a bad place.

But then I’m not so much hating on the outfits for how they ‘harm’ women, rather those armors just don’t look that good.

Oh I have plenty to say about the armor designs in general. But that’s a whole different discussion. That is why we DO need more options. And I’m not saying “remove the skimpy outfits because they offend me”. But I was hoping to raise some awareness from our male audience that we should kind of be offended by this sort of stuff. This game is better than that.

“You are confusing your terminology in regards to this discussion. I’m addressing the issues of an offensive stereotype against women, which appears in the form of sexual depictions. I’m not against sexual depictions. I’m against the difference in which women are depicted from men. And this is a clear case of sexism, women are portrayed differently. It conforms to a persistent negative stereotype of women in video games. You really want to argue semantics here?”

I have no idea how your logic works. You’re against a supposed offensive stereotype (which doesn’t offend a lot of women to start with) in the form of sexual depiction. There is no “sexism” involved in sexual depiction. What is sexism is the difference in depiction of genders in relation to one another. You’re against the concept of sexual depiction, for you classify that as a “negative stereotype” and “offensive”. Every argument you make is based mostly on how sexual depiction is offensive, even the arguments in which you try to address actual sexism of differences in depiction, which I’ll show next.

“We both take part in a play. I get handed my awesome necro costume, and you get handed a speedo. Would I have any right to be offended by the fact that I didn’t get to wear the speedo?”

Not only is this argument way out of proportions and out of context, it has the negative aspects of sexual depiction as core mechanic. So let’s take away the assumption that one thing is inherently worse than the other: Men get choice X, women get choice X and Y. Men now have every right to be offended by the fact that they don’t get Y. That is my reasoning. In the same manner, men have every right to be offended by the fact that they do not (or barely) have access to armour that reveals skin, while women do.

But you penalise sexualisation as a whole, and take the extremes to prove your point.

“I think everyone can confirm that I’ve already blatantly stated that I wouldn’t mind attractive outfits on both men and women. I’m all for equality. But right now there isn’t. So I attack the inequality.”

Yes you have. But that’s beside the point. I pointed out that even if men and women had exactly the same armour, you would still come here and complain. Let’s say winged armour were the same for both men and women, and men had to wear the women’s version. I dare say that you would still point at winged armour as being sexist [sic] against women, because it’s offensive and untasteful.

Your problem is not the difference in depiction, but the actual depiction. And for that, you’ll need to use a different thread. If you’re offended by armour that hints at sexuality, then this topic is not your place to be. This thread called for more revealing armour for both men and women alike. You’ve admitted yourself that revealing needn’t be equated to sexualisation, and that revealing armour is very much possible without any sexual aspects. And truth be told? That’s exactly what this thread is requesting: Armour that shows skin, is sexy, but isn’t sexualised, much like GW1’s armours.

Instead you come into this thread and moan and complain about existing armour sets and armour sets from different games, neither of which have anything to do with this thread. You’ve made your point on not wanting sexualised armour, and most people agreed with you, but you’re not stopping there in satisfaction. You want to keep going until everybody agrees with you that the current depiction of women in video games is far from ideal, which is off-topic entirely.

Make your own topic for your goal to tell developers that the existing armour sets are supposedly offensive (even though as demonstrated in this thread, the majority disagrees with you there, and maybe it’s just you being offended).

Rubykuby.3427:

What you’re ignoring entirely, is that you do not represent women, and that you do not represent the silent majority. You represent feminism at its core, and all you’re doing is doing feminists a giant favour.

I represent no one but my own opinion, and have never stated anything else (despite some women supporting my position).

Rubykuby.3427:

There have been heaps of women in this topic who have told you repeatedly that they don’t mind the current depiction of women in video games, and are quite in favour of both revealing and non-revealing armour sets.

I don’t care about those women, even if they counted a gazillion. What I care about is their actual arguments.

Rubykuby.3427:

You’re imagining a majority that supports your viewpoint who doesn’t open their mouths. But tell you what, if such a majority existed, the sexual depiction of women out in the real world would’ve long stopped.

If that were true, we would not have had years of racism as well. That’s not how it works.

Rubykuby.3427:

As a matter of fact, if such a majority existed, pornography wouldn’t exist. “But it’s solely male oppression that allows these things to exist!” you might resist. I’d call you a nutter. Male oppression is a myth.

Pornography exists purely due to a demand from both genders. You are derailing the subject, and making some gross misunderstandings as well.

Rubykuby.3427:

Besides, this is not the thread for your not-a-crusade against sexual (not sexist, I’ll remind you, please stop sexually abusing that term already) depiction of women in video games. This is the thread that calls for more diversity of armour in Guild Wars 2 for both sexes alike, no sexism involved. If you want to combat sexualisation of women, open a new thread and call it “Please Stop Sexual Depiction of Women in Guild Wars 2”.

Why do you keep doing this? There seems to be a sort of panic reaction from your side, as soon as someone points out an embarrassing truth about the depiction of women. And you construct this demonized version of my opinion, and then beat up on it for a while. You seem to be afraid that “we”, a bunch of angry vile feminists, are here to take away your choice to dress sexy. Why do you do this? Why not simply engage in normal discussion, and address the actual points that are made?

Rubykuby.3427:

I have no idea how your logic works. You’re against a supposed offensive stereotype (which doesn’t offend a lot of women to start with) in the form of sexual depiction. There is no “sexism” involved in sexual depiction. What is sexism is the difference in depiction of genders in relation to one another.

The number of women offended by it is irrelevant to the discussion. What matters is the arguments. And lets be clear, you do not have any numbers on how many people find it offensive, and neither do I. So don’t use that as an argument.

The difference in depiction is EXACTLY what I’m discussing. Which is why it IS sexism.

Rubykuby.3427:

You’re against the concept of sexual depiction, for you classify that as a “negative stereotype” and “offensive”.

No, you are failing to understand my position. I’m not against sexual depiction in general. I’m against a persistent sexual portrayal of women, which is an offensive stereotype because it is the only way women are constantly portrayed (save for a few games, such as Half-Life and Uncharted). Men are rarely portrayed this way.

Rubykuby.3427:

Every argument you make is based mostly on how sexual depiction is offensive, even the arguments in which you try to address actual sexism of differences in depiction, which I’ll show next.

No. That is not my point.

Rubykuby.3427:

Not only is this argument way out of proportions and out of context, it has the negative aspects of sexual depiction as core mechanic. So let’s take away the assumption that one thing is inherently worse than the other: Men get choice X, women get choice X and Y. Men now have every right to be offended by the fact that they don’t get Y. That is my reasoning. In the same manner, men have every right to be offended by the fact that they do not (or barely) have access to armour that reveals skin, while women do.

No, your example does not apply. The sexual depiction is the core of the argument here, so don’t remove it and then pretend its a better analogy. This is all about skimpy outfits for women, and you’d be just as offended if your choices included speedos, while female choices were all normal armors. That is the core of the argument.

Rubykuby.3427:

I pointed out that even if men and women had exactly the same armour, you would still come here and complain.

That is a strawman. You suppose something I’m not actually saying. Stop arguing a strawman.

Exactly. Pornography exists due to a demand from both genders. In the same manner – in real life – sexually hinting clothes for women exist due to demand from and approval of both genders. Stretching further on, sexually appealing armour exists in video games due to demand from and approval of both genders. My. Point. Entirely. But you’re pretending that there’s no demand for such armour, or that the existence of such armour is ethically challenging. The existence of such armour is perfectly fine, even though some sets take it a few notches too far, which I can understand. The fact men don’t get access to that armour isn’t perfectly fine, though, and unfair on both men and women.

Also, what, “point out embarrassing truths”? What are you, the bringer of truth? To claim that what you say is true is a very bold statement, and I’ll never resort to using that tactic. The only truth I dare say is that women get access to a bigger diversity of armour than men, and that women are more often skimpily depicted than men. To give these truths subjective meanings is no truth. It is my opinion that the way women are depicted in Guild Wars 2 is acceptable overall, and that men should be depicted in the same way as women when wearing the same armour set. There is no truth in either statement, much like there’s no truth in most of your statements. So don’t come in here and say that you’ve revealed the truth about sexism to all, because you quite frankly haven’t.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

I already destroyed that argument with the speedo example. If one gender is being depicted as a negative stereotype, its not the other gender that should be equally offended. I do not understand how you could possibly defend that idea and keep a straight face.

Here, I’ll give another example. We both take part in a play. I get handed my awesome necro costume, and you get handed a speedo. Would I have any right to be offended by the fact that I didn’t get to wear the speedo?

I fail to see how it’s offensive.

For the police version, if the men have the choice to not wear that speedo, then it’s inconsequential. People would begin to think the option was more a joke than anything. Who goes out on their beat to take care of drunks in a parking lot while wearing nothing but underwear? Result: no one would wear it, no one would care.

For the play version, if the part I was playing required me to wear a speedo, that’s the part you play. Period. You can either play a different part or just not participate if you don’t like the required costume.

What would be offensive is, if the part I was playing required a speedo but I was barred from wearing the costume because my junk was too small and not desirable to look at or was too big and would be too suggestive for the play.

Or if I didn’t like the part with the speedo so asked to have your part with the necro costume but they tell me “Oh, well the costume you’ll be wearing for the necro part is this speedo”.

But those examples are offensive for different reasons than “A person wears underwear while B person wears plate armor”.

But I was hoping to raise some awareness from our male audience that we should kind of be offended by this sort of stuff. This game is better than that.

I think it’s a good exerciser to express what offends you and why. Perhaps when we identify personal values, it’d be far easier to convey ones opinion on the subject.

/me sighs.

If you truly cared for the sexist side of things, you would have long rooted for my approach of giving men and women the same armour sets. Instead, you do this: “I’m against a persistent sexual portrayal of women, which is an offensive stereotype because it is the only way women are constantly portrayed (save for a few games, such as Half-Life and Uncharted)”

In the very first sentence, you admit that you’re against sexual portrayal of women. No matter how men are portrayed, truly, you just can’t stand the fact that women are portrayed sexually. And Guild Wars 2 has to make up for the industry’s wrongdoings by containing no sexual portrayal of women at all. That’s not how it works. Guild Wars 2 has included very little sexual portrayal, little enough to be considered acceptable entirely, but you still beat at the fact that Guild Wars 2 indeed sexualises.

That aside, let’s carry on to the next part of your sentence: “which is an offensive stereotype because it is the only way women are constantly portrayed” Just because something only applies to women, doesn’t mean it’s offensive. This is just faulty reasoning. That’s like saying “only men are featured as ‘the boss’ in romantic comedies. This is therefore offensive towards men.” (It’s funny because feminists will say that it’s offensive towards women, even though the boss is always a kitten)

Make your mind up. Instead of beating at the current armour for women in Guild Wars 2, opt for more options for men instead (which is exactly what this topic does!!!). Problem solved. But of course, this would only be true if you cared for equality. But you don’t really, and are looking for any way to prove that women are treated unfairly.

Also, in a new post, how on Earth is any of this stuff related to the actual suggestion of “more variety in armour”? This topic requested more armour that features skin for both sexes alike, and instead it’s plagued by complaints about sexism towards women (which is ironic because the thread requested skimpy armour for both men and women, and is therefore anything but inherently sexist).

So I’ll pose the following questions:
“Do we want armour that reveals skin?”
and
“What conditions should be met if the answer to the latter question is yes?”

I’ve already answered that question with four points:
1. It has to be tasteful.
2. It has to be equal for both sexes.
3. There has to be a balance between revealing and non-revealing armour.
4. Functionality should be considered, though not absolutely mandatory.

Discuss that, not this useless sexism against women stuff we have to constantly cope with.

Rubykuby.3427:

/me sighs.

If you truly cared for the sexist side of things, you would have long rooted for my approach of giving men and women the same armour sets. Instead, you do this: “I’m against a persistent sexual portrayal of women, which is an offensive stereotype because it is the only way women are constantly portrayed (save for a few games, such as Half-Life and Uncharted)”

In the very first sentence, you admit that you’re against sexual portrayal of women.

Its interesting when you put the quotes side by side like this. Because it perfectly illustrates how you’ve removed a crucial word from my sentence. The word “persistent”. I’m not against the portrayal, I’m against the persistent portrayal.

Rubykuby.3427:

Discuss that, not this useless sexism against women stuff we have to constantly cope with.

If you just want everyone to agree with you, just make a topic called “I want everyone to have more fun”. Really, no one particularly disagrees with the initial idea of more armor choices. Everyone in this topic, including myself, have already agreed that the game needed more armor options.

This is a FAR more interesting thing to debate easily. Because this is something we clearly disagree on. Are you afraid that people disagree with you? Or do you not want to admit that you can’t really defend the skimpy outfits for women?

You state that I don’t care about equality. But then you suggest another strawman, that I am in favor of inequality. I have no idea how you would deduce that from my posts. I think you are purposely demonizing my point of view.

Rubykuby.3427:

And Guild Wars 2 has to make up for the industry’s wrongdoings by containing no sexual portrayal of women at all. That’s not how it works. Guild Wars 2 has included very little sexual portrayal, little enough to be considered acceptable entirely, but you still beat at the fact that Guild Wars 2 indeed sexualises.

Indeed it does sexualize. And it only sexualizes women. My question is, why? Why do games do this to begin with?

Rubykuby.3427:

Also, in a new post, how on Earth is any of this stuff related to the actual suggestion of “more variety in armour”? This topic requested more armour that features skin for both sexes alike, and instead it’s plagued by complaints about sexism towards women (which is ironic because the thread requested skimpy armour for both men and women, and is therefore anything but inherently sexist).

So I’ll pose the following questions:
“Do we want armour that reveals skin?”
and
“What conditions should be met if the answer to the latter question is yes?”

I’ve already answered that question with four points:
1. It has to be tasteful.
2. It has to be equal for both sexes.
3. There has to be a balance between revealing and non-revealing armour.
4. Functionality should be considered, though not absolutely mandatory.

Discuss that, not this useless sexism against women stuff we have to constantly cope with.

I’m saying that this is not the topic for that debate, no matter how interesting. That, and I’ve lost my patience with you.

1. Sexual depiction isn’t bad.
2. Sexism is bad.
3. Women are currently exclusively being sexually depicted.
4. That’s sexism.
5. Let’s undo that sexism by sexually depicting men, too, at least in the armour department. Because applying rational logic, men aren’t exclusively objectified by how they look, but we’re going to forget that logic for a moment.
6. ???
7. Profit.

What more is there to argue? The nitpicky details?

Rubykuby.3427:

5. Let’s undo that sexism by sexually depicting men, too, at least in the armour department. Because applying rational logic, men aren’t exclusively objectified by how they look, but we’re going to forget that logic for a moment.

OR… not depict either one as sexualized stereotypes. Just depict them as normal men and women. Isn’t that a more logical approach?