Guild Wars 2

I can’t believe this topic is still going on and growing strong at that seeing different views. I mean literally this is not an issue at all because models like this regardless of what game platform isn’t new at all to the system with female anatomy being portrayed like that.

I think some people just need to accept the fact no matter how uncomfortable you are about the image. It will always be there no matter where you go in reality or playing video games.

I wish some people could just stop criticizing the artist and assuming what audience it is suppose to be for. It could for all audience whoever shares that taste.

DarksunG.9537:

kimeekat.2548:

However, I’d argue that what you’ve described is not objectification, it’s idealization, an argument that is presented in a more fun way here: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/7290-Objectification-And-Men

This guys criticism is absolute bullox. If you want a look at objectification based on facts & a bit of research & not pop-culture-critic style commentary, watch some http://www.youtube.com/user/girlwriteswhat

I have a Masters degree in English in which my emphases were feminist theory, play/game theory and science fiction, and as an undergrad I minored in anthropology. I assure you, I’m aware of actual academic arguments on the subject. I’d like to hear your opinion why his criticisms are “bullox” and what facts you feel are relevant.

DarksunG.9537:

Kal Spiro.9745:

Ok… you need to go back and learn what objectify means, because you obviously have no idea.

was gonna say the same to you. According to feminists(which is EXTREMELY one sided, but for the sake of argument):

instrumentality: the treatment of a person as a tool for the objectifier’s purposes;
denial of autonomy: the treatment of a person as lacking in autonomy and self-determination;
inertness: the treatment of a person as lacking in agency, and perhaps also in activity;
fungibility: the treatment of a person as interchangeable with other objects;
violability: the treatment of a person as lacking in boundary-integrity;
ownership: the treatment of a person as something that is owned by another (can be bought or sold);
denial of subjectivity: the treatment of a person as something whose experiences and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account.

Rae Langton (2009, 228–229) has added three more features to Nussbaum’s list:

reduction to body: the treatment of a person as identified with their body, or body parts;
reduction to appearance: the treatment of a person primarily in terms of how they look, or how they appear to the senses;
silencing: the treatment of a person as if they are silent, lacking the capacity to speak.

So that applies to enemies you slaughter more than to the princess. please learn your definitions before you attack someone.

So your feeling is that every single character, enemy or otherwise should be a fully fleshed out and realistic person. But you’re ok with the fact that the majority of female protagonists are none of these things? The characters that are actually relevant to the story?

So, the creatures, men or otherwise that I battle or murder in whatever form are not being objectified. They are, in fact, only being interacted with because I have no choice based on game mechanics.

They aren’t instrumental, they’re obstacles. There is no such thing as Autonomy where a video game is concerned, therefore this isn’t a reasonable argument. They’re never inert. They have fungibility, so that’s one. Not clear what Violobility is implying, actually. Ownership doesn’t apply, being a minion isn’t the same as being a slave. Definately denial of subjectivity. Reduction to body isn’t applicable, it’s not their body nor their body parts that is of concern, it’s the obstruction those things cause. reduction to appearance doesn’t apply, because they can look like absolutely anything, it would not change matters. Silencing is not relevant as it is a mechanic also. Some times they have things to say and sometimes they don’t, but if they don’t it isn’t because they’re treated like they don’t it’s because they physically so not have the capacity.

So no. With only two out of ten, your arguments on this matter are not valid.

I just took the assumption that not many are not exposed to the art world or don’t know how to accept / respect the artist works for it’s creativity regardless if it’s bad taste or great.

Bottom line this Fembot model isn’t a problem at all because what makes this model than any we’ve seen throughout television such as sci fi, video games or even Anime / Cartoons.

None of the above because I know majority of us been exposed to that image. So this shouldn’t be an issue at all. If anything it should be normal for us and besides females does have a appealing body and I know so. So whats wrong with showing female representation on robots?

Do you think Zhaitan would care or a Charr? Nope

Brutalistik.6473:

I can’t believe this topic is still going on and growing strong at that seeing different views. I mean literally this is not an issue at all because models like this regardless of what game platform isn’t new at all to the system with female anatomy being portrayed like that.

I think some people just need to accept the fact no matter how uncomfortable you are about the image. It will always be there no matter where you go in reality or playing video games…

I think ’that’s the way it is/has been, so we shouldn’t have a discussion about its merits or drawbacks; just accept things how they are and don’t aim for change or self-analysis’ is a disappointing attitude in approaching anything. shrug You don’t have to participate if it’s a topic or point of view that does not interest you. Thanks for reminding us all that this is a systemic issue in many facets of our society, though. We know; we’re trying to do something about through analysis and inclusive discussion GW2 is, imo, by no means a regular offender on this topic, and has really well-written female characters over all, which is probably why this thread is so striking.

Brutalistik.6473:

I can’t believe this topic is still going on and growing strong at that seeing different views. I mean literally this is not an issue at all because models like this regardless of what game platform isn’t new at all to the system with female anatomy being portrayed like that.

I think some people just need to accept the fact no matter how uncomfortable you are about the image. It will always be there no matter where you go in reality or playing video games.

I wish some people could just stop criticizing the artist and assuming what audience it is suppose to be for. It could for all audience whoever shares that taste.

I think you don’t understand how to define what is and is not an issue, then. See, being forced to accept something because that’s how it’s done regardless of how it makes you feel IS, in fact, an issue. Just because you don’t have a problem with it doesn’t give you the right to minimize how much of a problem anyone else may have with it.

Just to clarify. I don’t give a kitten about them. They don’t bother me. I just happen to understand how and why they do bother some other people.

kimeekat.2548:

GW2 is, imo, by no means a regular offender on this topic, and has really well-written female characters over all, which is probably why this thread is so striking.

Actually, for me the reason that this thread is so striking is because suddenly this is an issue. No one seemed to care about the other examples in this game with males and females, but for some reason, suddenly this is an issue.

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

kimeekat.2548:

GW2 is, imo, by no means a regular offender on this topic, and has really well-written female characters over all, which is probably why this thread is so striking.

Actually, for me the reason that this thread is so striking is because suddenly this is an issue. No one seemed to care about the other examples in this game with males and females, but for some reason, suddenly this is an issue.

I prefer to think of it as the Straw.

@ Kime and Kal

It’s a model. What makes this female model different than anything we’ve seen throughout our entire life?

I can understand if the artist made the model horrendous, but it didn’t get that type of feedback.

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

kimeekat.2548:

GW2 is, imo, by no means a regular offender on this topic, and has really well-written female characters over all, which is probably why this thread is so striking.

Actually, for me the reason that this thread is so striking is because suddenly this is an issue. No one seemed to care about the other examples in this game with males and females, but for some reason, suddenly this is an issue.

Show me a female form in GW2 walking around with nipples (excuse me- ~areolas~) out wearing only high heels, without a male equivalent, and I’m sure we’ll both see the ensuing fuss. Although as fusses go, this seems pretty tame o.o

Kiriwar.7382:

Anet if you’re reading this can we get sexy male robots too? And some chesty armour for my sexy thief instead of trenchcoats? It isn’t fair that light-armoured ladies get all the skin, why can’t guys get some too :C

i have said for YEARS that i don’t mind if my toons run around half-dressed; heck, i do that on purpose on some of them! but i’d LOVE to see some male toons as scantily-clad as my ladies!!!

Kal Spiro.9745:

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

kimeekat.2548:

GW2 is, imo, by no means a regular offender on this topic, and has really well-written female characters over all, which is probably why this thread is so striking.

Actually, for me the reason that this thread is so striking is because suddenly this is an issue. No one seemed to care about the other examples in this game with males and females, but for some reason, suddenly this is an issue.

I prefer to think of it as the Straw.

Hmmm…that could be one explanation. Do you think that perhaps it could also be a result of a heightened sensitivity, brought on by the frequency and veracity in which this topic is discussed?

Kinda like how you never notice Volkswagen Beetles until you start playing the game “punch buggy?”

The problem with humans is we are very good at pattern recognition, but not so good at decoding those patterns. So, we tend to see patterns in things, and the more we’re subjected to something, the more we see patterns in them. This is why, as I mentioned before, people who believe in UFO’s or conspiracies, or religious figures in toast, or paranormal activity, or psychics, tend to see false positives.

I’m not saying that these issues don’t exist, I’m just careful to label something as evidence at first glance. It is really easy to shout “sexism” and point fingers, it takes a lot more care and understanding to look at all the evidence, and form conclusions based on that.

In the case of GW2, I think there is an equal amount of sexualization and objectification. I also believe that much of it fits within the context of the story. I don’t see this particular character to be any worse than some of the other characters, however because it is such a new and interesting addition, it has turned heads.

neon.4863:

…..
However, I said “young males”, not all males. Specifically because lbr, if you really, honestly play games to watch an NPC’s boobs bounce, you’re probably a pubescent boy.
……

First, I doubt ANYONE plays games just to see NPC semi-nudity (cartoon, anime or otherwise), if you seriously think they do (even teenage horn-dogs), I think you have a twisted sense of the gaming community in general.
Second, I think you GREATLY underestimate the “dirty ol’man” present in most males over the age of 10 (both straight and not so much). Take my word for it, they are NOT limited to a sub-20 crowd.

However, if asked for a viewing preference WHILE I’m playing, I would certainly pick a scantily clad maiden to just about anything else. Sorry, I’m a 50 year old straight, male gamer with money to spend on entertainment.

I tend to agree that the 47% number needs to be analyzed a bit more. If that number includes those that play Facebook games and Bejewled then it is very misleading for the purposes of discussions about RTS and FPS games (RPGs and MMOs, maybe not so much (IMO) ….but that would be in the data that should be looked at closer).

Kal Spiro.9745:

So your feeling is that every single character, enemy or otherwise should be a fully fleshed out and realistic person. But you’re ok with the fact that the majority of female protagonists are none of these things? The characters that are actually relevant to the story?

My feeling is that you acted like you knew what objectification meant. you didn’t

Kal Spiro.9745:

So, the creatures, men or otherwise that I battle or murder in whatever form are not being objectified. They are, in fact, only being interacted with because I have no choice based on game mechanics.

that applies to all princess. Nice try on blaming it on mechanics in once place but not all.

Kal Spiro.9745:

They aren’t instrumental, they’re obstacles.

just like the princes & pretty much every female in games.

There is no such thing as Autonomy where a video game is concerned, therefore this isn’t a reasonable argument.

guess that doesn’t apply to the girls in games either

They’re never inert.

Oh no? there are plenty of games where killing an a completely non-acting emeies can be killed

Ownership doesn’t apply, being a minion isn’t the same as being a slave..

all minions of the Dragons are slaves. & they are slaves not worth saving.

Reduction to body isn’t applicable, it’s not their body nor their body parts that is of concern, it’s the obstruction those things cause.

Inn what way is it “not applicable”. Should I say it’s the not the body parts that is of concern it’s the gratification they cause? Honestly I don’t understand this definition very well, but I certainly disagree with your assertion that “’s the obstruction those things cause” that’s ridiculous. why not have a bunch of walls? it’s that killing a ‘living’ thing is more meaningful.

Kal Spiro.9745:

reduction to appearance doesn’t apply, because they can look like absolutely anything, it would not change matters.

I kind of agree with this, but very few high level mobs look mundane. the epicness is a cue to power.

Silencing is not relevant as it is a mechanic also. Some times they have things to say and sometimes they don’t, but if they don’t it isn’t because they’re treated like they don’t it’s because they physically so not have the capacity.

not true at all. it’s unrealistic to be in a game & shoot 50 people & have none of them crying in agony for hours. You think the “now i’ll never..” Is enough to non-objectify a person’s life? They make the deaths (and lives) quick most of the time because dealing with the “reality” of it is ridiculous in a game. it’s one of the essences of objectification, there is NOTHING to the enemies other than they are in the way & you have to kill them.

the whole “your argument is not valid” doesn’t hold up. you essentially said “these don’t count” with reasons that either apply to everything, or apply to games in general. And they CERTAINLY don’t apply to the princes model.

kimeekat.2548:

DarksunG.9537:

kimeekat.2548:

However, I’d argue that what you’ve described is not objectification, it’s idealization, an argument that is presented in a more fun way here: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/7290-Objectification-And-Men

This guys criticism is absolute bullox. If you want a look at objectification based on facts & a bit of research & not pop-culture-critic style commentary, watch some http://www.youtube.com/user/girlwriteswhat

I have a Masters degree in English in which my emphases were feminist theory, play/game theory and science fiction, and as an undergrad I minored in anthropology. I assure you, I’m aware of actual academic arguments on the subject. I’d like to hear your opinion why his criticisms are “bullox” and what facts you feel are relevant.

Unless you give me specific theories that you think are worth buying in what you linked to, I would just point you to what I linked to or direct you to Farrell’s The Myth of Male Power.

For me, I have a problem with the forms. But it’s NOT about the following.

1. It’s NOT about feminism or objectifying women
2. It’s not about sexuality or nudity
3. It’s not about getting offended. I’m somehow missing that bone

It’s about a machine – and a very obvious machine at that – having completely extraneous parts that serve no function. Mind you, these machines are NOT being made to look human ala terminator. No skin, no hair, no lips, no eyes. But they have boobs. And bums. And high heels! And that too not normal boobs, bums and heels. Huge, massive ones!

So my problem is this…what are the developers trying to achieve? Are they trying to make them look like women? Obviously not. Are they trying to make them feminine? Possibly. But then they would have had just normal curves, normal waists, and if necessary (though I don’t see how), normal heels.

So I’m left with no conclusion other than the fact that the developers just wanted to put in those parts for kicks to pander to the male player base.

bhagwad.4281:

So my problem is this…what are the developers trying to achieve? Are they trying to make them look like women? Obviously not. Are they trying to make them feminine? Possibly. But then they would have had just normal curves, normal waists, and if necessary (though I don’t see how), normal heels.

I think what they were trying to achieve was misconception with the fembots turning on the good guys. You know as they say don’t judge a book by its cover.

8 pages. 8! all because someone couldn’t see the beauty of making something in an ideal image. Take david, was the statue a fat balding middleaged guy with gout? no, it was the ideal form of a male in his prime. If you look at david and think “pfft, unrealistic i don’t look like that” then you’re missing the point. If i had the ability to sculpt or create an awesome figure in metal i’d kitten well make a woman i could fall in love with. If you look at that same woman and go “my boobs are’nt that pert, my butts not that perfect…unrealistic..pffft” then its YOUR self worth issue destroying a masterpiece. To then come online and try and have it abused, degraded and removed from the game? just sad. Get off the computer chair, go exercise and read a book on art. Grow up a little.

If I don’t have to kill them, I don’t. I move on and leave them. I only fight where I am forced into the fight by the mob itself, or the system. Killing them isn’t the goal. Saving the princess is the goal, she’s the important object of worth.

Kal Spiro.9745:

They aren’t instrumental, they’re obstacles.

just like the princes & pretty much every female in games.

No, the princess is the goal, the prize at the end of the game. The tool necessary to make me push forward. Other females are tools for other reasons. You’re not following your own definitions.

Kal Spiro.9745:

There is no such thing as Autonomy where a video game is concerned, therefore this isn’t a reasonable argument.

guess that doesn’t apply to the girls in games either

Correct, this part is entirely invalid.

Kal Spiro.9745:

They’re never inert.

Oh no? there are plenty of games where killing an a completely non-acting emeies can be killed

But not typically where it is required, and in those cases the inactive target is rarely gender specific. Remember, you’re arguing that MEN are being objectified as mobs, not people in general.

Kal Spiro.9745:

Ownership doesn’t apply, being a minion isn’t the same as being a slave..

all minions of the Dragons are slaves. & they are slaves not worth saving.

And they are not limited to males, therefore not valid in an argument objectifying men.

Kal Spiro.9745:

Reduction to body isn’t applicable, it’s not their body nor their body parts that is of concern, it’s the obstruction those things cause.

Inn what way is it “not applicable”. Should I say it’s the not the body parts that is of concern it’s the gratification they cause? Honestly I don’t understand this definition very well, but I certainly disagree with your assertion that “’s the obstruction those things cause” that’s ridiculous. why not have a bunch of walls? it’s that killing a ‘living’ thing is more meaningful.

I thought I was supposed to be the one that didn’t get the definition… They aren’t being reduces to statues whose only purpose is to be oggled. They are active things trying to obstruct me way. They aren’t walking boobs, they’re walking weapons. They’re bodies aren’t relevant, it is what they can do that matters.

Kal Spiro.9745:

reduction to appearance doesn’t apply, because they can look like absolutely anything, it would not change matters.

I kind of agree with this, but very few high level mobs look mundane. the epicness is a cue to power.

But again, you’re claiming objectification of Men. Not turtle monsters, or unimaginable tentacle horrors.

Kal Spiro.9745:

Silencing is not relevant as it is a mechanic also. Some times they have things to say and sometimes they don’t, but if they don’t it isn’t because they’re treated like they don’t it’s because they physically so not have the capacity.

not true at all. it’s unrealistic to be in a game & shoot 50 people & have none of them crying in agony for hours. You think the “now i’ll never..” Is enough to non-objectify a person’s life?

Infact, yes I do. Because it tells me a great deal about the person I just killed. But again, as I said, their lack of voice is a physical malady, not a perceived one. They don’t have a choice in the matter because they are not able to do more than that. That is why it’s not valid. For the same reason Autonomy isn’t valid. Now before you say it, the reason this doesn’t apply to heroins and princesses, is that they are expected to be more than that, and have a voice, so if they don’t it is because they weren’t deemed worthy, due to objectification.

the whole “your argument is not valid” doesn’t hold up. you essentially said “these don’t count” with reasons that either apply to everything, or apply to games in general. And they CERTAINLY don’t apply to the princes model.

And now I hope you know better. Still, this entire argument is still ireelevant because in GW2 mobs are both male and female indiscriminately. Therefore, even if Mobs are objectified, they’re being objectified equally in game. The Fembots are fembots alone, which in not equal objectification.

Talissa Chan.7208:

8 pages. 8! all because someone couldn’t see the beauty of making something in an ideal image. Take david, was the statue a fat balding middleaged guy with gout? no, it was the ideal form of a male in his prime. If you look at david and think “pfft, unrealistic i don’t look like that” then you’re missing the point. If i had the ability to sculpt or create an awesome figure in metal i’d kitten well make a woman i could fall in love with. If you look at that same woman and go “my boobs are’nt that pert, my butts not that perfect…unrealistic..pffft” then its YOUR self worth issue destroying a masterpiece. To then come online and try and have it abused, degraded and removed from the game? just sad. Get off the computer chair, go exercise and read a book on art. Grow up a little.

Wake me up when Anet designers create a male nude character with a prick. A big one – not like David’s little appendage. Actually, let them make a small one first. I’ll go with that

Talissa Chan.7208:

8 pages. 8! all because someone couldn’t see the beauty of making something in an ideal image. Take david, was the statue a fat balding middleaged guy with gout? no, it was the ideal form of a male in his prime. If you look at david and think “pfft, unrealistic i don’t look like that” then you’re missing the point. If i had the ability to sculpt or create an awesome figure in metal i’d kitten well make a woman i could fall in love with. If you look at that same woman and go “my boobs are’nt that pert, my butts not that perfect…unrealistic..pffft” then its YOUR self worth issue destroying a masterpiece. To then come online and try and have it abused, degraded and removed from the game? just sad. Get off the computer chair, go exercise and read a book on art. Grow up a little.

Ignorant personal attacks about our bodies and minds aside, go check the first three pages. There are plenty of critiques that began with how beautiful the watchknights are. But, you’re right: David is beautiful! Let’s get some David-looking partial-nudes up in the watchknights or the next mechanical mob, with some testicle-bolts Then this design would be closer to equal (though his kitten is still mighty modest compared to this design’s breast size). Though, you know, we’d still have the problem of limited body type representation in games (not what I’m focusing on, but also important). Not sure equal sexualization is the cultural answer, but at least we sink or swim together at that point.

So a design for a protector is all about who you could see yourself falling in love with? Could you not “fall in love” with a body that looks differently than this? I can’t imagine why we’d think the female body is being reduced or objectified in this discussion with phrasing like that (sarcasm). What does love or sex have to do with a bamfy robot guard? I also don’t think a “middle-aged man with gout” could take down Goliath, as I doubt a robot would operate very well in heels with all its most vulnerable gears exposed.

bhagwad.4281:

Wake me up when Anet designers create a male nude character with a prick. A big one – not like David’s little appendage. Actually, let them make a small one first. I’ll go with that

You are going to continue to use this argument, and simply ignore any criticism aren’t you?

Let me put this simply for you. You are not talking the same thing. There are no females in GW2 that have their genitalia exposed. There are, males with their chests exposed, and now one instance of a feminine robot with implied areola.

By continuing to make this ridiculous comparison, you are distorting the issue.

Are you confident enough to address my criticism?

kimeekat.2548:

But, you’re right: David is beautiful! Let’s get some David-looking partial-nudes up in the watchknights or the next mechanical mob, with some testicle-bolts Then this design would be closer to equal (though his kitten is still mighty modest compared to this design’s breast size).

Just so I understand what you’re saying. Are you saying that because the Watchknight has implied areola and nakedness, that to be equal a male robot would have to have it’s genitals exposed?

bhagwad.4281:

Talissa Chan.7208:

8 pages. 8! all because someone couldn’t see the beauty of making something in an ideal image. Take david, was the statue a fat balding middleaged guy with gout? no, it was the ideal form of a male in his prime. If you look at david and think “pfft, unrealistic i don’t look like that” then you’re missing the point. If i had the ability to sculpt or create an awesome figure in metal i’d kitten well make a woman i could fall in love with. If you look at that same woman and go “my boobs are’nt that pert, my butts not that perfect…unrealistic..pffft” then its YOUR self worth issue destroying a masterpiece. To then come online and try and have it abused, degraded and removed from the game? just sad. Get off the computer chair, go exercise and read a book on art. Grow up a little.

Wake me up when Anet designers create a male nude character with a prick. A big one – not like David’s little appendage. Actually, let them make a small one first. I’ll go with that

I keep thinking of those silly cod pieces in those Batman movies. Personally, I don’t know why GW2 doesn’t let me wear a big honking huge cod piece to impress the ladies.

Kal Spiro.9745:

If I don’t have to kill them, I don’t. I move on and leave them. I only fight where I am forced into the fight by the mob itself, or the system. Killing them isn’t the goal. Saving the princess is the goal, she’s the important object of worth.

HOW they are objectified does not matter.. should i say that in DoA Volleyball, since I can’t (because of game systems) play the character’s back story, it’s ok that she doesn’t have a personality? The problem is that you pick & choose where to use the word object. you have no consistent standard that you use. If the game system requires you to kill them- not objectified. If the game system requires you to save the princess- objectified.

Kal Spiro.9745:

Remember, you’re arguing that MEN are being objectified as mobs, not people in general.

WRONG. I said that the beings that you slaughter indiscriminately are MORE objectified than the princess at the end of X Mario-type game & if people really cared about universal objectification they’d stop freaking out about boobs & talk about murdering people. Incidentally, Mobs & movie kill-targets are almost universally males. Guild Wars is pretty much equal.

Kal Spiro.9745:

And they are not limited to males, therefore not valid in an argument objectifying men.

I thought I was supposed to be the one that didn’t get the definition… They aren’t being reduces to statues whose only purpose is to be oggled. They are active things trying to obstruct me way. They aren’t walking boobs, they’re walking weapons. They’re bodies aren’t relevant, it is what they can do that matters.

you don’t get it. You don’t get it at all. Again, you assume that objectification is all about boobs. That’s the biggest error you’re making. it’s why so few people make any consistent sense about this. Turning a person into a walking weapon IS TURNING THEM INTO A.. this is the great part because it’s actually an object: WEAPON. object; weapon. thing. no personality, no hopes, no dreams, no desires.

But again, you’re claiming objectification of Men. Not turtle monsters, or unimaginable tentacle horrors.

I’ll concede that I was making the assumption of humans or humanoid things, but Again, you put words in my mouth, and, are wrong. Not men, but all the people you slaughter in games. (even though the facts are that men are considered disposable in media, in war & in society in terms of injury & death. & for a very functional reason, but still in these terms “objectified”)

Kal Spiro.9745:

Infact, yes I do. Because it tells me a great deal about the person I just killed. But again, as I said, their lack of voice is a physical malady, not a perceived one. They don’t have a choice in the matter because they are not able to do more than that. That is why it’s not valid. For the same reason Autonomy isn’t valid. Now before you say it, the reason this doesn’t apply to heroins and princesses, is that they are expected to be more than that, and have a voice, so if they don’t it is because they weren’t deemed worthy, due to objectification.

wow, this is just fantasy front to back. You again, create a reason that the, say, separatists shouldn’t talk being some kinda of throat cancer or birth defect (maldy). then say that when it’s the princess (which almost always have something to say at the end) it’s because of some random objectified unworthiness cast upon her. this is insane, I mean the lengths you go to literally generate malice, ignorance or disrespect on the part of developers from nowhere is astounding. She is expected to more than that & have a voice? what? MARIO DOESN’T EVEN SAY ANYTHING. But the objectification only applies to her? Did he get some maldy from eating too much spaghetti? & if it applies to Mario, the Princess & the mobs… maybe it’s not objectification, or maybe it’s not a big deal. wow man.. ok.. I cant even.. wow.

At any rate, I don’t buy into this new fad of saying everything is objectified. I think they word has lost meaning. it basically a word used to create a quick, untestable, unquestioned moral high-ground. I have yet to see actual proof that this has negative effects on society.

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

kimeekat.2548:

But, you’re right: David is beautiful! Let’s get some David-looking partial-nudes up in the watchknights or the next mechanical mob, with some testicle-bolts Then this design would be closer to equal (though his kitten is still mighty modest compared to this design’s breast size).

Just so I understand what you’re saying. Are you saying that because the Watchknight has implied areola and nakedness, that to be equal a male robot would have to have it’s genitals exposed?

Male toplessness is not sexualized the way female toplessness generally is in western culture, so it would have to be something like testicular bolts with a generic codpiece, imo. I think this would keep the modesty of the main organ in both designs while gonad/mammary is emphasized/“exposed”. How would you do it? I’ve seen more radical propositions on here, haha, so I’m sure you have an opinion.

kimeekat.2548:

Male toplessness is not sexualized the way female toplessness generally is in western culture, so it would have to be something like testicular bolts with a generic codpiece, imo. I think this would keep the modesty of the main organ in both designs while gonad/mammary is emphasized/“exposed”. How would you do it? I’ve seen more radical propositions on here, haha, so I’m sure you have an opinion.

I would beg to differ. I just watched a movie where Matthew Mcconaughey took his shirt off, for no real reason (Mud). There are countless examples of where bare male chests are sexualized, from games, to magazines, to media, etc.

Would you like to see examples of sexualize male chests / upper bodies in media? How many would it take before you were convinced it exists? Even if I were to concede that what you’re saying is true, that still doesn’t mean you just skip down the line and go straight for male genitalia.

If anything you could argue there is no male equivalent to female toplessness, but even that is a stretch.

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

What evidence to do you have to support the claim that this game is focused on the male demographic and is pandering to the lowest common denominator? Please post examples.

How about the various skimpy female armors that show underwear, or underboob?

But lets get one thing clear, I’m not saying that the whole game is pandering to this demographic, but a lot of MMO’s in general are. And this is simply following that trend, and I don’t think it’s a good development.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

How about the various skimpy female armors that show underwear, or underboob?

But lets get one thing clear, I’m not saying that the whole game is pandering to this demographic, but a lot of MMO’s in general are. And this is simply following that trend, and I don’t think it’s a good development.

Yes, and what about male armors that show bare chests, or draw attention to, or simulate male genitalia? What about the half naked blue guy shown above, or the fact that when your armour breaks you are only wearing boxers?

I just think there is a bit of a false conclusion being drawn when you say that the only gender that this appeals to. Worse is when we assume the only ones that these are designed for are horny young males.

Kalathra.3128:

I agree that’s why people seem to find it offensive, but I don’t agree that they should, necessarily, or at least that they should give it some more thought. There are exaggerations of body image throughout the entire game, and in many others, because it’s styled to be that way. I agree that body image is a big deal, I struggle with it myself, but at the same time, I’m not going to look at a CGI robot and compare myself to them. A CGI human? Maybe. Even with body image, we tend to look towards people that already almost look like us.

I also agree there are other ways to convey femininity, but this is definitely the most powerful way to do it. Both symbolically and aesthetically, any other feminine traits would have been completely missed or dismissed, and aesthetics is the best way to get your point across in visual mediums. Even more powerful and positive, to me, is that this is the first instance that I’m aware of, of a robot with a female form being placed in a position of power, and protection. Normally, fem bots have always been used as in media as sexualised objects for entertainment purposes. Which is far more detrimental, both symbolically, and metaphorically. This is a hugely positive, powerful representation, even if it is just robots with boobs. (I know you didn’t say anything against that, I went on a tangent after quoting you.)

Also, 100% agree about Nostalgia Chick. If anyone does decide to go and watch the FemFreq videos, please go and watch any of the many counter-‘arguments’, and discussions surrounding her videos and inform yourself of more than just her viewpoint. Her videos are quite bad for misinformation, or at least misrepresenting information, and cherry picking. I think they’re a good thing to watch to hear what she has to say, I agree with some of her points, but please don’t listen to her videos alone and claim them absolute. Get other views and opinions, too, and form your own opinion from the pool of them.

I’m not trying to imply wrong or right, but I guess what I’m trying to say is that whatever the intention was the implementation it was most definitely ham-fisted. This game’s undoubtedly made for entertainment and mass appeal (as evident by the style and the level of writing), so it might not even be the best medium to make whatever statement these watchknights intended to make.

I still stand by my previous statements. I find the design of the robots to be downright gaudy, and, not to mention, the exaggeration is more than reminiscent of the immature representation of the human body that runs rampant in this industry.

The imagery of these robots may be effective, but in this case it’s only being done through a sort of shock value. Reading through this thread makes the consequences of this all the more obvious. All things considered, I don’t think it was the right approach.

I was lazy and didn’t post this earlier but the alternative I mentioned is to or convey symbolism through narrative and action. In a medium where interactions between the player’s agency and the imaginary world are central to the experience, symbolism is best made through that interaction.

This is totally unrelated to the whole feminism and videogames deal, but I believe that the best example of symbolism in viderogames to date is Majora’s Mask. The entire experience of that game is not unlike purgatory as Link is physically unable to resolve every problem before the inevitable reset of the gameplay cycle. Faith, as it was emphasized by several key NPCs, was the only way for Link to save a land that was doomed of wickedness and cruelty born from distrust. Several gameplay mechanics even made use of the concept of faith, but I won’t spoil which though because they do it pretty darn well. This is just scratching the surface of all the symbolism.

kimeekat.2548:

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

kimeekat.2548:

But, you’re right: David is beautiful! Let’s get some David-looking partial-nudes up in the watchknights or the next mechanical mob, with some testicle-bolts Then this design would be closer to equal (though his kitten is still mighty modest compared to this design’s breast size).

Just so I understand what you’re saying. Are you saying that because the Watchknight has implied areola and nakedness, that to be equal a male robot would have to have it’s genitals exposed?

Male toplessness is not sexualized the way female toplessness generally is in western culture, so it would have to be something like testicular bolts with a generic codpiece, imo. I think this would keep the modesty of the main organ in both designs while gonad/mammary is emphasized/“exposed”. How would you do it? I’ve seen more radical propositions on here, haha, so I’m sure you have an opinion.

Nearly every woman I know will go a little crazy at seeing a hot male torso, not to mention muscular arms and athletic legs. I don’t know where in western culture you are but you’re nowhere near where I am.

Ehhh I wouldn’t call it sexy or anything like that. It’s just design. Lets be serious here for a sec, of all the scantly clad designs they have for female avatars (look at cloth and leather) this is actually considered in bad taste. I am not buying it.

zenleto.6179:

kimeekat.2548:

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

kimeekat.2548:

But, you’re right: David is beautiful! Let’s get some David-looking partial-nudes up in the watchknights or the next mechanical mob, with some testicle-bolts Then this design would be closer to equal (though his kitten is still mighty modest compared to this design’s breast size).

Just so I understand what you’re saying. Are you saying that because the Watchknight has implied areola and nakedness, that to be equal a male robot would have to have it’s genitals exposed?

Male toplessness is not sexualized the way female toplessness generally is in western culture, so it would have to be something like testicular bolts with a generic codpiece, imo. I think this would keep the modesty of the main organ in both designs while gonad/mammary is emphasized/“exposed”. How would you do it? I’ve seen more radical propositions on here, haha, so I’m sure you have an opinion.

Nearly every woman I know will go a little crazy at seeing a hot male torso, not to mention muscular arms and athletic legs. I don’t know where in western culture you are but you’re nowhere near where I am.

I agree, and there are plenty of examples to support this.

The difference I think, is that because our societies have accepted male toplessness for so long, the novelty of it has worn off to some degree. Now, stay with me because this is going to be a tad difficult to explain.

In my opinion (I would really like to find some studies supporting this), there are different feelings that come into play when experiencing something rare. For example, when you visit an amusement park, or your favourite band in concert, there are a lot of emotions present that most of us wouldn’t consider to be sexual in nature.

The novelty, and rarity of the event makes it exciting. When it comes to female and male chests, I would argue that both are still equally sexualized. The difference is that because male nudity is typically more common/accepted, some of the additional emotional elements are not as strong as they are when you see the relatively rare female breast.

This is hard to explain, because I feel that people often lump the additional emotional responses into the sexual response, and assume it’s all one emotion.

Why this matters is because when we are talking about male sexualization, I think we need to remember that certain male chests are often viewed as very sexual by both genders. And there is an additional novelty involved when someone we admire takes their shirt off (like some of the more popular actors out there).

So, when we’re talking about the sexualization of the genders, I think we need to remember that while sexualization of both genders upper bodies still exists, males simply have become more accepted.

And…as you can guess, this means that in the context of this Watchknight, I don’t think the equivalent is male genitalia…that would be female genitalia. The Watchknight does not possess such an organ.

I don’t mind that they are all female, however I do not like that they appear to have nipples. just my two cents here.

Who can even see them with the hundreds of combo fields and particle effects going off every second?

And you’re not supposed to be looking at the anyway, you should be busy rushing around trying to cram in all your achievements before the next event.

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

kimeekat.2548:

But, you’re right: David is beautiful! Let’s get some David-looking partial-nudes up in the watchknights or the next mechanical mob, with some testicle-bolts Then this design would be closer to equal (though his kitten is still mighty modest compared to this design’s breast size).

Just so I understand what you’re saying. Are you saying that because the Watchknight has implied areola and nakedness, that to be equal a male robot would have to have it’s genitals exposed?

Yep.

bhagwad.4281:

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

kimeekat.2548:

But, you’re right: David is beautiful! Let’s get some David-looking partial-nudes up in the watchknights or the next mechanical mob, with some testicle-bolts Then this design would be closer to equal (though his kitten is still mighty modest compared to this design’s breast size).

Just so I understand what you’re saying. Are you saying that because the Watchknight has implied areola and nakedness, that to be equal a male robot would have to have it’s genitals exposed?

Yep.

Well, that’s just ridiculous.

Yep I was very disappointed when I first saw these sexbots. I just thought it was being very juvenile of ANet to make these robots with such obviously highly exaggerated female sexual characteristics. Clearly these robots were meant to appeal to all the sad little men who play this game as female characters with the largest possible breasts and dress them up in the skimpiest clothing they can find. I wish ANet was mature enough not to indulge these sad lonely men and didn’t include some of their kittentier armour designs like that split skirt that shows the characters underwear that seemingly 90% of female light armour users have.

To all the people saying it’s fine and shows powerful women let me point out some things. In ancient art that features the nude human form men and women are given equal representation. Also body proportions are always believable and never exaggerated to make the people depicted more sexually appealing, again this is applied to both genders.

Also being a powerful woman does NOT mean prancing about fighting monsters in high heels with massive breasts wearing little more than a bikini. That is not empowering women, if you think it is then you have a lot of growing up to do. Are modern day female soldiers given tube tops and mini skirts to fight in so they can show as much skin as possible? No they wear the exact same things the male soldiers wear.

I wish there were more game developers who had the balls to break away from these childish representations of women that have become far too common in video games and instead give us realistic and believable female characters. Look at some of the strong women in history like Boudicca, Joan of Arc, Elisabeth I and so on. None of these women had to off go around in bikinis to be taken seriously so why can’t more women in video games do the same?

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

zenleto.6179:

kimeekat.2548:

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

kimeekat.2548:

But, you’re right: David is beautiful! Let’s get some David-looking partial-nudes up in the watchknights or the next mechanical mob, with some testicle-bolts Then this design would be closer to equal (though his kitten is still mighty modest compared to this design’s breast size).

Just so I understand what you’re saying. Are you saying that because the Watchknight has implied areola and nakedness, that to be equal a male robot would have to have it’s genitals exposed?

Male toplessness is not sexualized the way female toplessness generally is in western culture, so it would have to be something like testicular bolts with a generic codpiece, imo. I think this would keep the modesty of the main organ in both designs while gonad/mammary is emphasized/“exposed”. How would you do it? I’ve seen more radical propositions on here, haha, so I’m sure you have an opinion.

Nearly every woman I know will go a little crazy at seeing a hot male torso, not to mention muscular arms and athletic legs. I don’t know where in western culture you are but you’re nowhere near where I am.

I agree, and there are plenty of examples to support this.

The difference I think, is that because our societies have accepted male toplessness for so long, the novelty of it has worn off to some degree. Now, stay with me because this is going to be a tad difficult to explain.

In my opinion (I would really like to find some studies supporting this), there are different feelings that come into play when experiencing something rare. For example, when you visit an amusement park, or your favourite band in concert, there are a lot of emotions present that most of us wouldn’t consider to be sexual in nature.

The novelty, and rarity of the event makes it exciting. When it comes to female and male chests, I would argue that both are still equally sexualized. The difference is that because male nudity is typically more common, some of the additional emotional elements are not as strong as they are when you see the relatively rare female breast.

This is hard to explain, because I feel that people often lump the additional emotional responses into the sexual response, and assume it’s all one emotion.

Why this matters is because when we are talking about male sexualization, I think we need to remember that certain male chests are often viewed as very sexual by both genders. And there is an additional novelty involved when someone we admire takes their shirt off (like some of the more popular actors out there).

So, when we’re talking about the sexualization of the genders, I think we need to remember that while sexualization of both genders upper bodies still exists, males simply have become more accepted.

And…as you can guess, this means that in the context of this Watchknight, I don’t think the equivalent is male genitalia…that would be female genitalia. The Watchknight does not possess such an organ.

Correct me if I’m wildly wrong but I think you’re meaning the difference in emotional responses can be compared to a bunch of male surfers chilling on the beach with their suits half undone versus a male stripper going about his business. Since female surfers generally wont sit about topless (on popular beaches anyway in my country) we wont see their chests bared for all and the emotional response, from both sexes, would be higher if they ever did. Seeing feminine chest construction on these robots is eliciting this same response.

I’ve had a terrible cold all week so maybe I’ve gone off track here.

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

bhagwad.4281:

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

kimeekat.2548:

But, you’re right: David is beautiful! Let’s get some David-looking partial-nudes up in the watchknights or the next mechanical mob, with some testicle-bolts Then this design would be closer to equal (though his kitten is still mighty modest compared to this design’s breast size).

Just so I understand what you’re saying. Are you saying that because the Watchknight has implied areola and nakedness, that to be equal a male robot would have to have it’s genitals exposed?

Yep.

Well, that’s just ridiculous.

Like it or not, female chests exposed is not the same as a male chest being exposed. We’re not speaking from a mechanical or a technical point of view, but from a cultural perspective obviously.

Don’t believe me? Take off all the clothes from your GW2 character. Males will have chests exposed. Females will have a covering. Even Anet themselves believe this.

Tharium.7325:

Yep I was very disappointed when I first saw these sexbots.

At no time are they performing anything of a sexual nature, nor is there any implication they were designed for such a purpose. A very juvenile conclusion.

Tharium.7325:

I just thought it was being very juvenile of ANet to make these robots with such obviously highly exaggerated female sexual characteristics. Clearly these robots were meant to appeal to all the sad little men who play this game as female characters with the largest possible breasts and dress them up in the skimpiest clothing they can find. I wish ANet was mature enough not to indulge these sad lonely men and didn’t include some of their kittentier armour designs like that split skirt that shows the characters underwear that seemingly 90% of female light armour users have.

I wish some people were mature enough to be able to view implied nudity without resorting to calling people names and making gross, and demeaning generalizations about them.

Tharium.7325:

To all the people saying it’s fine and shows powerful women let me point out some things. In ancient art that features the nude human form men and women are given equal representation. Also body proportions are always believable and never exaggerated to make the people depicted more sexually appealing, again this is applied to both genders.

You have obviously never taken an art history class. Would you like some examples of exaggerations of male and female features in ancient art?

As well, who are you to say what is more, or less sexually appealing?

Tharium.7325:

Also being a powerful woman does NOT mean prancing about fighting monsters in high heels with massive breasts wearing little more than a bikini. That is not empowering women, if you think it is then you have a lot of growing up to do. Are modern day female soldiers given tube tops and mini skirts to fight in so they can show as much skin as possible? No they wear the exact same things the male soldiers wear.

What a woman wears does not make them less capable or less valued. Anyone who thinks the proportions of a woman’s body dictates their abilities, value, or femininity has a lot of growing up to do.

Tharium.7325:

I wish there were more game developers who had the balls to break away from these childish representations of women that have become far too common in video games and instead give us realistic and believable female characters. Look at some of the strong women in history like Boudicca, Joan of Arc, Elisabeth I and so on. None of these women had to off go around in bikinis to be taken seriously so why can’t more women in video games do the same?

I wish some gamers were able to look objectively at art. I wish some gamers were able to understand the concept of stylization and interpretation in art and its purpose. I wish some gamers were able to understand that to have everything depicted as 100% accurate just so we don’t insult anyone would not only be impossible, but boring as well.

And to add, you are comparing real life women to a stylized version of a female robot. This is not meant to be a realistic representation of a woman. These robots are meant to be stylized versions of women, with the intention of being fighting machines.

This is not an advertisement for Dove soap. And if you want a realistic depiction of female, then what characteristics would you have?

We see stylized versions of humans all the time in popular media. Males and females are often exaggerated for various reasons. These reasons are many, and I would be happy to go into them for you, but the point is that not everything is meant to be, or needs to be a realistic representation of a human. To argue that they do, would be to argue against some of the most iconic aliens, robots, and monsters in all of popular media.

Tharium.7325:

In ancient art that features the nude human form … body proportions are always believable and never exaggerated to make the people depicted more sexually appealing, again this is applied to both genders.

I may not agree about the Watchknights specifically, but I appreciate the spirit of most what you said – however, in this particular, you really do not have the slightest idea what you’re talking about.

zenleto.6179:

Correct me if I’m wildly wrong but I think you’re meaning the difference in emotional responses can be compared to a bunch of male surfers chilling on the beach with their suits half undone versus a male stripper going about his business. Since female surfers generally wont sit about topless (on popular beaches anyway in my country) we wont see their chests bared for all and the emotional response, from both sexes, would be higher if they ever did. Seeing feminine chest construction on these robots is eliciting this same response.

I’ve had a terrible cold all week so maybe I’ve gone off track here.

Well, of course context matters. A woman breastfeeding is not considered sexual by most because the context is not sexual. Just like many times when humans are posing nude for art, it’s not sexual in nature….there is sexuality, but it’s not sexual.

However, there can be no argument that typically (unless you live in places like Europe were nudity is much more accepted), society has a much higher emotional response to topless women because of what I feel are additional emotions/chemicals released. That’s not to say that men don’t also evoke a sexual response when going topless (men and woman often get sexually aroused at the sight of a naked mans torso), but the difference is that we’re more used to seeing it as a society, so the additional non-sexual responses are not as present (but still are to some degree because men aren’t always topless).

So ya, if we just take the surfers….topless surfers of both genders may still turn the heads of people on the beach, but a topless female would evoke additional emotions (not necessarily sexual), because of the added “novelty” or rarity of it all.

Now, if this was a nude beach, men and women would still be gazed at by others in a sexual nature, but because the presence of female breasts is so much more the norm, the additional “whoa” factor wouldn’t be there.

EDIT:

To keep this on topic. In this case, what we are seeing in terms of the design of the Watchknight robot is a slightly pushing the norms of what we have typically seen in GW2.

Not only is this character different from most of the female, and robot representations we have seen, but they have features that are arguably more sexualized than what we’re used to seeing.

This creates those additional emotional responses that I’m talking about above. When people mix in their bias, preconceived notions, and personal comfort levels, it is no wonder that it has caused a stir by some people.

However, the biggest problem is that some people are taking this character, applying the emotions they’re feeling, and making conclusions based on that. Some, as we have seen are not able to handle this and resort to outbursts of emotions and insults.

Some, more mature gamers are able to find a medium area where they are questioning and discussing, but they’re not overly offended by it. And then you have those who are on the other end of the spectrum that simply don’t have any problem with this design, and can’t understand why anyone would be offended by it.

No one is necessarily wrong in how they feel, but when they start to shame, or insult others for feeling differently, that is when it bothers me.

Art is in the eye of the beholder and I can’t force anyone to like, or dislike the design of these characters. Everyone has the right to love it, hate it, or be indifferent to it. My hopes are that ANet does not pull a Stephen Spielberg and pander to one group or the other. My hopes are that they’re professional and mature enough to be able to understand that it is ok to explore art in the game. Some will love the Watchknights and hate the fuzzy pink Quaggan hats, and some will love the mini-pet kittens, but hate the Charr Molten Facility bad guy.

The game is rated T for teen, and I would hope that would mean that players and ANet could maintain a maturity level that doesn’t allow this game to turn into a sanitized, politically correct, everything is safe, game.

The Watchknights freak me out, I must admit. First time I was checking the new update when I notice a silhouette above me. I look up , creepy dolls hanging overhead everywhere.

I can appreciate where I’m pretty sure they were going with them—that they wanted them to be powerful female figures to reflect Jennah’s power. The design does look like an homage to Metropolis and other romantic/artistic interpretations of robots around the 1920s. From that perspective, they’re pretty cool and visually interesting.

However, nothing exists in a void, and the unintended implications of stuff like this can make a neat idea seem gross if it’s not thought all the way through. As far as we’ve seen, the Watchknights have no personality or purpose aside from being machines that are literally disposable, and that makes their stylized sexual characteristics creepy.

Arshay Duskbrow.1306:

Tharium.7325:

In ancient art that features the nude human form … body proportions are always believable and never exaggerated to make the people depicted more sexually appealing, again this is applied to both genders.

I may not agree about the Watchknights specifically, but I appreciate the spirit of most what you said – however, in this particular, you really do not have the slightest idea what you’re talking about.

Yeah I decided not to include stone age fertility charms in my point about art, I obviously have no idea about art do I. Yep a quick search of all the countless exquisite pieces of renaissance paintings and statues clearly shows all the women with DD breasts and men with 12 inch kittenes….

Tharium.7325:

Arshay Duskbrow.1306:

Tharium.7325:

In ancient art that features the nude human form … body proportions are always believable and never exaggerated to make the people depicted more sexually appealing, again this is applied to both genders.

I may not agree about the Watchknights specifically, but I appreciate the spirit of most what you said – however, in this particular, you really do not have the slightest idea what you’re talking about.

Yeah I decided not to include stone age fertility charms in my point about art, I obviously have no idea about art do I. Yep a quick search of all the countless exquisite pieces of renaissance paintings and statues clearly shows all the women with DD breasts and men with 12 inch kittenes….

Last I checked, ancient art was not considered Renaissance.

Perceived as a “rebirth” by some yes, but not in itself ancient.

Celestina.2894:

Tharium.7325:

Arshay Duskbrow.1306:

Tharium.7325:

In ancient art that features the nude human form … body proportions are always believable and never exaggerated to make the people depicted more sexually appealing, again this is applied to both genders.

I may not agree about the Watchknights specifically, but I appreciate the spirit of most what you said – however, in this particular, you really do not have the slightest idea what you’re talking about.

Yeah I decided not to include stone age fertility charms in my point about art, I obviously have no idea about art do I. Yep a quick search of all the countless exquisite pieces of renaissance paintings and statues clearly shows all the women with DD breasts and men with 12 inch kittenes….

Last I checked, ancient art was not considered Renaissance.

My point still stands for old Greek and Roman statues. Or is over 2500 years not old enough for you?

Tharium.7325:

Celestina.2894:

Tharium.7325:

Arshay Duskbrow.1306:

Tharium.7325:

In ancient art that features the nude human form … body proportions are always believable and never exaggerated to make the people depicted more sexually appealing, again this is applied to both genders.

I may not agree about the Watchknights specifically, but I appreciate the spirit of most what you said – however, in this particular, you really do not have the slightest idea what you’re talking about.

Yeah I decided not to include stone age fertility charms in my point about art, I obviously have no idea about art do I. Yep a quick search of all the countless exquisite pieces of renaissance paintings and statues clearly shows all the women with DD breasts and men with 12 inch kittenes….

Last I checked, ancient art was not considered Renaissance.

My point still stands for old Greek and Roman statues. Or is over 2500 years not old enough for you?

I was merely pointing out that your claim of Renaissance being ancient is false.

I think you need to calm down before you start hurting your argument by attacking everyone.

Tharium.7325:

Arshay Duskbrow.1306:

Tharium.7325:

In ancient art that features the nude human form … body proportions are always believable and never exaggerated to make the people depicted more sexually appealing, again this is applied to both genders.

I may not agree about the Watchknights specifically, but I appreciate the spirit of most what you said – however, in this particular, you really do not have the slightest idea what you’re talking about.

Yeah I decided not to include stone age fertility charms in my point about art, I obviously have no idea about art do I. Yep a quick search of all the countless exquisite pieces of renaissance paintings and statues clearly shows all the women with DD breasts and men with 12 inch kittenes….

1) Don’t make blanket statements if you don’t want to be misconstrued.
2) I personally wouldn’t consider the Renaissance “ancient”. The Greek and Roman forms they were emulating perhaps, but
3) only Western European artforms that you consider “exquisite” count? I think not. Besides,
4) Look up Peter Paul Rubens, among many others, if you think that hyperbolizing the body proportions considered desirable in that time period didn’t happen.