Whether something is either wrong or right, someone will always complain about it.
Raiment Of The Lich
1 2
The original GW1 version had wings, why remove them? No wings, no buy.
Possibly because the wings and the games backpacks were incompatible?
The costumes were designed to be used with the backpacks and to make one not use them would require a redesign. Perhaps It would even make it not usable In the costume slot.
This set is ridiculous and I will not be buying it.
For one, it completely removes charr tails. WHY? Even the horrendous clipping issues these outfits are notorious for were better then completely removing the tail.
Furthermore, I am sick and tired of “sex” gear being exclusively tied to female characters. No, I do not want my female character to look like a prostitute. No, I do not appreciate the inherent degradation and disrespect towards women that it shows, to only offer objectifying gear for female characters, and not for male characters.
Definitely not impressed.Did you even look at the male version or did you just glance at the female one and start typing?
A bare-chested male is not the equivalent of a bare-chested, or even partially bare-chested, female.
The female breasts are sexualized to a degree that the male chest is not. A more likely male equivalent to this would be his junk almost sticking out. Which it is not.So men with six packs aren’t sexualised to the degree of woman with big breasts ?
No. They are not.
This set is ridiculous and I will not be buying it.
For one, it completely removes charr tails. WHY? Even the horrendous clipping issues these outfits are notorious for were better then completely removing the tail.
Furthermore, I am sick and tired of “sex” gear being exclusively tied to female characters. No, I do not want my female character to look like a prostitute. No, I do not appreciate the inherent degradation and disrespect towards women that it shows, to only offer objectifying gear for female characters, and not for male characters.
Definitely not impressed.Did you even look at the male version or did you just glance at the female one and start typing?
A bare-chested male is not the equivalent of a bare-chested, or even partially bare-chested, female.
The female breasts are sexualized to a degree that the male chest is not. A more likely male equivalent to this would be his junk almost sticking out. Which it is not.Really? Maybe not to the same extent but I guarantee a handsome bare chested man is indeed sexualized. (If he wasn’t being sexualized for the female gaze, he would be covered up).
The difference is that the female gaze is not all-encompassing to a male’s identity. Ugly or handsome, sexy or not, a man is still afforded a certain respect by society—and still has respect for himself. Women’s worth, on the other hand, is tied directly to their appearance, and to whether males “approve” of that appearance. Tellingly, most women base their self-concept and self-respect, to some degree, on the male gaze.
The male gaze and the female gaze -SHOULD- have equal effect for both sexes. In a perfect world, they would. But it isn’t a perfect world, nor an equal one. I’m not saying that males aren’t sexualized—they are. What I am saying, is that females are objectified as “things for sex” in a way that males, sexualized or not, aren’t. And that is apparent in the gender disparity between male and female armor—how much is covered, and what is covered.
I was very, very close to buying the Raiment of the Lich. This, in spite of deciding a while back that I was done spending real money on GW2 because I haven’t been happy with the general direction of the game.
During work today I was looking forward to getting home and logging in to buy it. I got home, logged in and previewed it. Googled, to see make sure it was dyable. Found out I could only dye the portions that appear red in the preview. Looked at it for a while longer. Still considering. Not sure about those feather shoulder pieces. I tend to turn most shoulder armor off because they always seem disproportionate.
Finally, I decided without the ability to choose which parts and dye the whole thing, I didn’t really need it.
If this was an armor set, ArenaNet would have 10 more bucks from me. As it is, the outfit system is just too restrictive.
The only other skin set I’ve bought from the trading post was the medium aetherblade armor. My Asura engineer still wears his steampunk gear with pride. I hide, however, the shoulders, and he wears the monocle, instead of the helmet that came with the set. If it had been released as an outfit, I never would have purchased it.
ArenaNet. We need more mix and match armor sets. Outfits are just too limited in customization.
The difference is that the female gaze is not all-encompassing to a male’s identity. Ugly or handsome, sexy or not, a man is still afforded a certain respect by society—and still has respect for himself. Women’s worth, on the other hand, is tied directly to their appearance, and to whether males “approve” of that appearance. Tellingly, most women base their self-concept and self-respect, to some degree, on the male gaze.
The male gaze and the female gaze -SHOULD- have equal effect for both sexes. In a perfect world, they would. But it isn’t a perfect world, nor an equal one. I’m not saying that males aren’t sexualized—they are. What I am saying, is that females are objectified as “things for sex” in a way that males, sexualized or not, aren’t. And that is apparent in the gender disparity between male and female armor—how much is covered, and what is covered.
I agree that attractiveness and “sexiness” go a long way into society deeming a woman’s worth, more than should be reasonable. There should be a broad range of clothing and armor options for both males and females to suit various tastes and preferences. We are in complete agreement about that.
I think I should point out though that for men, society deems their worth via “power”. A weak or powerless man is almost universally derided and mocked; even if they are portrayed as victims, they are usually viewed as being failures for their inability to protect or stand up for themselves, or to achieve their goals. They might be protected or cared for, but in the same way that the children or elderly should be cared for. They are accorded little or no respect and their opinions are usually ignored or brushed aside.
The key difference here between the way society accords men and women status is that while attractiveness is usually fixed, there are many different ways a man can accrue power. It can be physical (such as being a sportsman or athlete), socio-political (politicians, actors/singers), financial (wealthy CEOs and businessmen) or intellectual (scientists, authors).
I say all this not to try and make a point that “men have it tough too!”, but more to say that I think society puts too much emphasis on putting “successful people” (that is, men or women who exemplify power and/or beauty) up on pedestals, and I feel a lot of people are unhappy because they are trying so hard to meet these ideals when they honestly don’t need to. It’s all well and good to strive to better yourself, but you can be a happy, productive person without defining your life’s worth by the (often impossible) standards of society.
As an aside, I believe this is why so many of the MRA activists are so angry. They feel, or view themselves, as falling into this category of weak/failed men. Trouble is, they’ve latched onto women and the feminist/equality as the source of their problems, when actually the root cause is much deeper than that.
1 2