321 réponses à ce sujet

[Chipaway111]

I want my pc to wear a dress if she's attending formal events. I want her to be in a piece of material that doesn't hug her legs. I really fail to see an issue with that.

Should there be choices for more? Of course, everyone loves choices.

[KiwiQuiche]

No, my female character in DA3 shall wear pants and/or armour. She has no damn time to wear dresses and do fancy 'lady-like' crap while a war is going on.

I was angry enough I got a fugly dress instead of a leather jacket and jeans in ME3 with my Femshep, I don't want to have to deal with that in DA3.

[tmp7704]

Emzamination wrote...

Sorry but dresses, high heels, lipstick ect... are feminine clothing/makeup products manufactured for & with women in mind, and have been for the last thousand years.Everyone is free to wear what they want to wear, but that doesn't change the fact certain apparel is gender specific in design.

And that's merely social convention, and has nothing to do with biological differences you were citing earlier. When the conventions change, it renders these labels meaningless. As simple example, it wasn't that long ago when pink was actually considered a bold, manly colour worn by men, and blue was "feminine". That's how little meaning these labels carry, and how quick the fashions can (and do) change.

[upsettingshorts]

tmp7704 wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

Sorry but dresses, high heels, lipstick ect... are feminine clothing/makeup products manufactured for & with women in mind, and have been for the last thousand years.Everyone is free to wear what they want to wear, but that doesn't change the fact certain apparel is gender specific in design.

And that's merely social convention, and has nothing to do with biological differences you were citing earlier. When the conventions change, it renders these labels meaningless. As simple example, it wasn't that long ago when pink was actually considered a bold, manly colour worn by men, and blue was "feminine". That's how little meaning these labels carry, and how quick the fashions can (and do) change.

Indeed.  Observe noted transvestite and gender boundary-defying toddler President Franklin D. Roosevelt [source]:

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 28 octobre 2012 - 01:00 .

[Emzamination]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

No, my female character in DA3 shall wear pants and/or armour. She has no damn time to wear dresses and do fancy 'lady-like' crap while a war is going on.

I was angry enough I got a fugly dress instead of a leather jacket and jeans in ME3 with my Femshep, I don't want to have to deal with that in DA3.

I see... well more pretty for the rest of us.

[Emzamination]

tmp7704 wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

Sorry but dresses, high heels, lipstick ect... are feminine clothing/makeup products manufactured for & with women in mind, and have been for the last thousand years.Everyone is free to wear what they want to wear, but that doesn't change the fact certain apparel is gender specific in design.

And that's merely social convention, and has nothing to do with biological differences you were citing earlier. When the conventions change, it renders these labels meaningless. As simple example, it wasn't that long ago when pink was actually considered a bold, manly colour worn by men, and blue was "feminine". That's how little meaning these labels carry, and how quick the fashions can (and do) change.

That is incorrect sir. One only needs look at dresses to disprove that statement.

Dresses are primarily designed to complement the female  hips, small back and breast area (Those things men don't have).They are feminine by design.

[Palipride47]

Emzamination wrote...

Ser Bard wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

The see-through top... that white ruffled blouse... Oooo that is precious.If only those pants could become a black skirt, it would be simply delectable.

Nice find Palipride

Well actually...

*Sg Finery*

And this is what I tend to have my Hawkes wearing

*Sg Finery*

I weep for the gaming pc I never had  

I hope we have outfits of similar victorian design in Da3 <3

Funny enough, the PC I play DA on is nowhere NEAR "gaming" standards (more like "budget factory closeout" standards), and it plays alright on med detail (some lag, not incredbily maddening). It requires the processor to be maxed out and the laptop to be plugged in though  (saving up for an Asus Republic of Gamers or MSI with a Windows 7 downgrade)

But I won't touch consoles still for that reason, that if I don't like something on a PC game, I can fix it. 
Consoles = "you don't like it, tough it out, crybaby. This ain't SIMS"

Though EA never liked us being able to mod our games, they make it tougher with each new game, hoping to find a way to squeeze us for more money where they see a demand in "customization"

Modifié par Palipride47, 28 octobre 2012 - 01:07 .

[KiwiQuiche]

Emzamination wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

No, my female character in DA3 shall wear pants and/or armour. She has no damn time to wear dresses and do fancy 'lady-like' crap while a war is going on.

I was angry enough I got a fugly dress instead of a leather jacket and jeans in ME3 with my Femshep, I don't want to have to deal with that in DA3.

I see... well more pretty for the rest of us.

Give my protagonist more places to store her Murder Knife, let her punch out the Divine and beat up Templars wearing a towel during an ambush.

As long as I get no dresses and they fix the walk. Lady Hawke while standing...it looked painful, like her hip was dislocated or something. And Femshep's walk in ME3...just wut.

Okay I have no idea what I'm rambling on about.  And wouldn't fighting in a dress and high heels be damn hard? Faceplant in the grass, trip over the hem and where are you gottan stick your battle axe I wonder.

[Palipride47]

Emzamination wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

Sorry but dresses, high heels, lipstick ect... are feminine clothing/makeup products manufactured for & with women in mind, and have been for the last thousand years.Everyone is free to wear what they want to wear, but that doesn't change the fact certain apparel is gender specific in design.

And that's merely social convention, and has nothing to do with biological differences you were citing earlier. When the conventions change, it renders these labels meaningless. As simple example, it wasn't that long ago when pink was actually considered a bold, manly colour worn by men, and blue was "feminine". That's how little meaning these labels carry, and how quick the fashions can (and do) change.

That is incorrect sir. One only needs look at dresses to disprove that statement.

Dresses are primarily designed to complement the female  hips, small back and breast area (Those things men don't have).They are feminine by design.

You are looking at dresses that fit today's social conventions. TMP is correct. Conventions on what is feminine/masculine do change over time.

Dresses were designed thousands of years ago for easy movement and breathability. (edit: they weren't called "dresses" but they certainly weren't "mens" clothing, they were our "mumus")

And those dresses flatter ONE woman's shape. And it definitely ain't mine. 

Modifié par Palipride47, 28 octobre 2012 - 01:16 .

[upsettingshorts]

Emzamination wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

Sorry but dresses, high heels, lipstick ect... are feminine clothing/makeup products manufactured for & with women in mind, and have been for the last thousand years.Everyone is free to wear what they want to wear, but that doesn't change the fact certain apparel is gender specific in design.

And that's merely social convention, and has nothing to do with biological differences you were citing earlier. When the conventions change, it renders these labels meaningless. As simple example, it wasn't that long ago when pink was actually considered a bold, manly colour worn by men, and blue was "feminine". That's how little meaning these labels carry, and how quick the fashions can (and do) change.

That is incorrect sir. One only needs look at dresses to disprove that statement.

Dresses are primarily designed to complement the female  hips, small back and breast area (Those things men don't have).They are feminine by design.

This is cherry picking.  Your original assertion explicitly named examples (dresses, high heels, lipstick) as being distinctly feminine and with women in mind.  Those are two different things.  tmp0774 was pointing out that the concept of "feminine" is fluid and based in social conventions.  Of course clothing designed to be worn by women accounts for female proportions, however, the same is true when it comes to gender neutral clothing such as jeans and t-shirts and isn't limited to dresses.  

Furthermore, dresses exist that are designed in such a way as to be flattering to those with wider shoulders and narrower hips, as women with that shape exist as well. 

So yeah, totally different.

If you're arguing that dresses designed for women look better on women than they do on men, then duh, that's a tautology.  If you're arguing that dresses are only designed for women because dresses are feminine and always have been "for a thousand years" then you're wrong.

Not to mention that heels do the same thing for mens' legs and buttocks as they do for women.  Shocking, I know.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 28 octobre 2012 - 01:15 .

[tmp7704]

Emzamination wrote...

That is incorrect sir. One only needs look at dresses to disprove that statement.

Dresses are primarily designed to complement the female  hips, small back and breast area (Those things men don't have).They are feminine by design.

It's quite correct -- partially proven already by the article linked by Upsettingshorts, partially by the fact the "feminine" dresses evolved from tunic* which was originally, a surprise, unisex garment. A different variation, the gown in various shapes has been worn by both sexes well late into 18th century, and still remains traditional attire in some professions.

*) simplifying. there was other functionally similar early designs, but they were similarly dress-like and worn by both genders.

Modifié par tmp7704, 28 octobre 2012 - 01:16 .

[Masha Potato]

[Palipride47]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Not to mention that heels do the same thing for mens' legs and buttocks as they do for women.  Shocking, I know.

My guy friend can attest to that (yes.....he's gay *sigh*)

Instant butt lift and taut leg muscles. More effective than synthol. 

[Emzamination]

Palipride47 wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

Sorry but dresses, high heels, lipstick ect... are feminine clothing/makeup products manufactured for & with women in mind, and have been for the last thousand years.Everyone is free to wear what they want to wear, but that doesn't change the fact certain apparel is gender specific in design.

And that's merely social convention, and has nothing to do with biological differences you were citing earlier. When the conventions change, it renders these labels meaningless. As simple example, it wasn't that long ago when pink was actually considered a bold, manly colour worn by men, and blue was "feminine". That's how little meaning these labels carry, and how quick the fashions can (and do) change.

That is incorrect sir. One only needs look at dresses to disprove that statement.

Dresses are primarily designed to complement the female  hips, small back and breast area (Those things men don't have).They are feminine by design.

You are looking at dresses that fit today's social conventions. TMP is correct. Conventions on what is feminine/masculine do change over time.

Dresses were designed thousands of years ago for easy movement and breathability. (edit: they weren't called "dresses" but they certainly weren't "mens" clothing, they were our "mumus")

And those dresses flatter ONE woman's shape. And it definitely ain't mine. 

I think you're thinking of robes

[Masha Potato]

Suddenly got so hot in here

[Pseudo the Mustachioed]

Emzamination wrote...

I think you're thinking of robes

Tautology. A robe is a dress is a robe, unless it's a bathrobe. In fact, "dress" in French is "robe."

[Palipride47]

Emzamination wrote...

Palipride47 wrote...

Emzamination wrote...


That is incorrect sir. One only needs look at dresses to disprove that statement.

Dresses are primarily designed to complement the female  hips, small back and breast area (Those things men don't have).They are feminine by design.

You are looking at dresses that fit today's social conventions. TMP is correct. Conventions on what is feminine/masculine do change over time.

Dresses were designed thousands of years ago for easy movement and breathability. (edit: they weren't called "dresses" but they certainly weren't "mens" clothing, they were our "mumus")

And those dresses flatter ONE woman's shape. And it definitely ain't mine. 

I think you're thinking of robes

Your point? The thing you call a "dress" that was supposedly only designed for women for the last thousand years only existed recently in human history (recently, as in boys were wearing dresses in their youth in the 1900s in America) 

Separate note: even makeup is not "for women." Makeup was for rich men and women for the past thousand years. Victorian women considered makeup as "low class"

http://en.wikipedia....ohl_(cosmetics)
http://en.wikipedia....uge_(cosmetics) (the favored cosmetic of America's Founding Fathers)

Modifié par Palipride47, 28 octobre 2012 - 01:27 .

[Emzamination]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

Sorry but dresses, high heels, lipstick ect... are feminine clothing/makeup products manufactured for & with women in mind, and have been for the last thousand years.Everyone is free to wear what they want to wear, but that doesn't change the fact certain apparel is gender specific in design.

And that's merely social convention, and has nothing to do with biological differences you were citing earlier. When the conventions change, it renders these labels meaningless. As simple example, it wasn't that long ago when pink was actually considered a bold, manly colour worn by men, and blue was "feminine". That's how little meaning these labels carry, and how quick the fashions can (and do) change.

That is incorrect sir. One only needs look at dresses to disprove that statement.

Dresses are primarily designed to complement the female  hips, small back and breast area (Those things men don't have).They are feminine by design.

This is cherry picking.  Your original assertion explicitly named examples (dresses, high heels, lipstick) as being distinctly feminine and with women in mind.  Those are two different things.  tmp0774 was pointing out that the concept of "feminine" is fluid and based in social conventions.  Of course clothing designed to be worn by women accounts for female proportions, however, the same is true when it comes to gender neutral clothing such as jeans and t-shirts and isn't limited to dresses.  

Furthermore, dresses exist that are designed in such a way as to be flattering to those with wider shoulders and narrower hips, as women with that shape exist as well. 

So yeah, totally different.

If you're arguing that dresses designed for women look better on women than they do on men, then duh, that's a tautology.  If you're arguing that dresses are only designed for women because dresses are feminine and always have been "for a thousand years" then you're wrong.

Not to mention that heels do the same thing for mens' legs and buttocks as they do for women.  Shocking, I know.

Oh you'll have to forgive me for not feeling like drawing up some huge post on the cosmetic differences in every example, even those past "ect...". Just because a man puts on a dress doesn't mean it was designed to be worn by him or with him in mind.Sorry that does not make it less feminine.

[upsettingshorts]

Emzamination wrote...

Oh you'll have to forgive me for not feeling like drawing up some huge post on the cosmetic differences in every example, even those past "ect...". Just because a man puts on a dress doesn't mean it was designed to be worn by him or with him in mind.Sorry that does not make it less feminine.

Unless it's a "dress" cut to flatter a man, and then our modern social conventions would still determine that it was feminine anyway.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 28 octobre 2012 - 01:27 .

[Emzamination]

Pseudocognition wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

I think you're thinking of robes

Tautology. A robe is a dress is a robe, unless it's a bathrobe. In fact, "dress" in French is "robe."

No, robes, togas ect are not dresses.

[Palipride47]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

Oh you'll have to forgive me for not feeling like drawing up some huge post on the cosmetic differences in every example, even those past "ect...". Just because a man puts on a dress doesn't mean it was designed to be worn by him or with him in mind.Sorry that does not make it less feminine.

Unless it's a "dress" cut to flatter a man, and then our modern social conventions would still determine that it was feminine anyway.

Shorts beat me to it. 

A dress made for men is still "feminine" by SOCIAL CONVENTION
Feminine and masculine are SOCIAL CONVENTIONS
Clothing (and the taboos asscoiated with it) are a visual representation of SOCIAL CONVENTIONS

Emzamination wrote...

Pseudocognition wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

I think you're thinking of robes

Tautology. A robe is a dress is a robe, unless it's a bathrobe. In fact, "dress" in French is "robe."

No, robes, togas ect are not dresses.

Now you are really cherry picking

Modifié par Palipride47, 28 octobre 2012 - 01:30 .

[Emzamination]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

Oh you'll have to forgive me for not feeling like drawing up some huge post on the cosmetic differences in every example, even those past "ect...". Just because a man puts on a dress doesn't mean it was designed to be worn by him or with him in mind.Sorry that does not make it less feminine.

Unless it's a "dress" cut to flatter a man, and then our modern social conventions would still determine that it was feminine anyway.

Examples?

[Emzamination]

Palipride47 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

Oh you'll have to forgive me for not feeling like drawing up some huge post on the cosmetic differences in every example, even those past "ect...". Just because a man puts on a dress doesn't mean it was designed to be worn by him or with him in mind.Sorry that does not make it less feminine.

Unless it's a "dress" cut to flatter a man, and then our modern social conventions would still determine that it was feminine anyway.

Shorts beat me to it. 

A dress made for men is still "feminine" by SOCIAL CONVENTION
Feminine and masculine are SOCIAL CONVENTIONS
Clothing (and the taboos asscoiated with it) are a visual representation of SOCIAL CONVENTIONS

Emzamination wrote...

Pseudocognition wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

I think you're thinking of robes

Tautology. A robe is a dress is a robe, unless it's a bathrobe. In fact, "dress" in French is "robe."

No, robes, togas ect are not dresses.

Now you are really cherry picking

^ No I'm just stating my stance in advance on those things incase they come up.I should also add shower curtains and towels... to that list since I can wrap those around myself as well.

[upsettingshorts]

Emzamination wrote...

Examples?

Robes, togas.

[tmp7704]

Emzamination wrote...

Examples?

modern social convention: "lolol, a guy wearing a skirt".