429 réponses à ce sujet

[Cutlass Jack]

dreamgazer wrote...

Kitty Pryde, in most iterations.

But she's also named after cat litter. I think given a choice, she'd have preferred the outfits.

[o Ventus]

I don't particularly care for EDI's body either way. I would have preferred her to remain in the ship ala ME2, but her body is okay. I don't really care for her D cups or RobotToe though.

That said, I don't mind attractive people (of either gender) in video games. Not every soldier or fighter is ass-ugly. Sexualization being over-the-top is okay so long as the sexualizatiom was intended from the beginning. I hate it when somebody (or something) in a game gets implants and facial reconstruction surgery just to look prettier (see Ashley). It becomes obvious of the intent and an sense of tact or subtlety just flies out the window.

Ashley looked just fine in ME1. All they needed to do (if they felt the need to change anything) was let her hair down.

Miranda being hot is okay. Kitana (from MK) being hot is okay. Sofia and Sam (from Gears of War) is okay.

[AlexMBrennan]

When I think of them I do not think of stripperfic, strippers are not all that skinny.

"Stripperrific" refers to how they are dressed:


Notice a pattern?

If you want to cosplay as a female superhero then you need to have a very fit body because you will have to show off almost all of it.

[TheProtheans]

I was confused, you quoted the part where I said healthy weight.
I got the impression it was discussing the weight and not the outfits they wear.
I thought you wanted me to name one that has a healthy weight.

I can see how someone may see that as something a stripper would wear.
If you want to cosplay as superman it appears you also need a muscular body.
A male stripper may wear a superman like outfit so I guess that is "stripperfic" too.

Modifié par TheProtheans, 03 mai 2013 - 03:33 .

[TheRealJayDee]

o Ventus wrote...

I hate it when somebody (or something) in a game gets implants and facial reconstruction surgery just to look prettier (see Ashley). It becomes obvious of the intent and an sense of tact or subtlety just flies out the window.

Ashley looked just fine in ME1. All they needed to do (if they felt the need to change anything) was let her hair down.

Poor Ash...

[Cutlass Jack]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

If you want to cosplay as a female superhero then you need to have a very fit body because you will have to show off almost all of it.

You need a fit body to not look embarassing in tights of either gender. Regardless of coverage. And even at maximum fitness, the one doing Wonder Woman will be mocked far less than the one wearing his underwear over his clothing.


Fun side fact: While sexualization is actually part of her character, The Black Widow is more covered up than three Avengers she shares a movie with (Thor, Hawkeye and Hulk.)

[MerinTB]

dreamgazer wrote...

AlexMBrennan wrote...
Name one. All female superheroes have stripperific outfits so short of not going at all there's not much to be done.

Kitty Pryde, in most iterations.

Are we talking about just outfits?

Outfits that don't cut to reveal a lot of leg and chest?

Huntress and Power Girl -


Rogue -


Batgirl -

Barbara:


Stephanie:


Cassandra:


Are we talking heroic female characters in comics who are healthy weights (crimefighting kind of implies being in shape, so I'm drifting to comic book heroines instead of super-heroines)

Francine Peters -


Maggie Chascarrillo -


I could keep going, but it would turn into overblown picture spam.

[Display Name Owner]

Yeah, really not a fan of EDI's body or even particularly fond of the idea of her even getting one. If it was optional, I'd have her stay a disembodied AI every time.

I don't mind sexy at all. In fact, I like a bit of sexy, but EDI is downright oversexualised. The even bigger crime is that it's immersion breaking. Every time I see her, I don't think about how Cerberus designed her, I think of how the devs designed her just to be sexy and how they should have done it differently. The design isn't even logical for what the unit's intended purpose was. It needs to be used for infiltration, so make it conspicuously curvaceous, wearing the face of an actual dead person. Smart. Cerberus couldn't even use it again because it has a set appearance.

[o Ventus]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

AlexMBrennan wrote...

If you want to cosplay as a female superhero then you need to have a very fit body because you will have to show off almost all of it.

You need a fit body to not look embarassing in tights of either gender. Regardless of coverage. And even at maximum fitness, the one doing Wonder Woman will be mocked far less than the one wearing his underwear over his clothing.


Fun side fact: While sexualization is actually part of her character, The Black Widow is more covered up than three Avengers she shares a movie with (Thor, Hawkeye and Hulk.)

Sexualization isn't necessarily only about showing skin. Miranda is sexualized, but the only skin you see from her is her head, neck, and the very top of her cleavage. Accenting the body (regardless of the amount of skin shown) is what drives the idea.

[MyChemicalBromance]

MyChemicalBromance wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

spirosz wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

spirosz wrote...

-snip-

I'm probably going to hell for this, but whining get's what whining deserves, being ignored.

Depends on the whining and the situation. 

Making something that happens to everyone a big deal and framing it as if it only happens to a single solitary group or person.

Yeah, that comic is predicated on the assumption that fat men don't get made fun of (which, in a fantastic bit irony, the comic itself does), and that women don't ogle attractive men.

But what can I say, I'm a white straight man; I make my checks out to privilege and oppress everything I can.
 

In all seriousness, a gender politics debate on BSN would be horrific. Let's try and not go there.

[Cutlass Jack]

o Ventus wrote...

Sexualization isn't necessarily only about showing skin. Miranda is sexualized, but the only skin you see from her is her head, neck, and the very top of her cleavage. Accenting the body (regardless of the amount of skin shown) is what drives the idea.

So like James then.

[Morlath]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Eva Core was designed to infiltrate society in whatever way required. This has been touched on in films and even in DA:O when Leliana talks to Alistair about sleeping with her targets

Yes, the first, best and only solution to infiltrate any enemy organisation is blantant in-your-face sex appeal. (i wonder how much of the CIA's annual budget is spent on boob jobs? )

EDI not putting new clothing on highlights how she doesn't see herself as an attractive woman. She understands that the platform is appealing but finds no issue with that fact

Thus demonstrating complete lack of understanding of society - you can't just do whatever you feel like.

There is no doubt that the bot would have programs enabling it to seduce (hence that first walk through the smoke)

So her programming made Adams use a fire extinguisher at the right time to produce a seductive effect?
Besides, EDI took control of the body so the original design is immaterial.

I didn't say the "first, best and only". It is, however, one method. And you forget that Eva was playing as being a Doctor (scientist?) at the time.

She fully admits she doesn't understand a lot of social interactions but you're missing the point. She isn't naked. She's wearing something that is akin to Samura's outfit and decides not to put anything else on for the reason I stated. It isn't about "doing whatever you feel like", it's about her not seeing the importance of changing her clothing from what the body was already wearing.

How is the original design immaterial? She comments about its function and abilities almost straight away and uses these as reasons for being a squad member. The information in the body along with the ability to actually put it into practice would be an obvious bonus so that she could learn.

[David7204]

MerinTB wrote...

David7204 wrote...
So here's how I see it. People are only allowed to think about attractiveness so long as those thoughts are completely separated from their behaviors and actions in all spheres. Courtesy and politeness are not sufficient. They must treat unattractive and attractive people the same way, which includes sex and romance. They're obligated to do so.

Outside of casting a specific gendered character for a video production, or picking the person you want to be your companion in life...

gender should be a non-factor.

Outside of actual beauty contests (which I am not condoning in the mentioning of them,) or lists of "most attractive models" (which I am also not condoning,) there is no reason to judge a person's sexiness or attractiveness in venues that have NOTHING to do with sexiness or attractiveness.

To do so to ordinary people going about their ordinary lives, whether it be working in the office, going to the grocery store, attending an event like a play or a movie, or even dressing up as their favorite characters for a geeky convention, is wrong.

Yes, you must treat all people equally in almost all circumstances.  You could come up with ridiculous outliers that make the previous statment seem ludicrous (what if they pull a gun on you?  what if they are insulting you endlessly?  what if they leave the restaurant without paying their tab?  should we treat those people equally?!?) but the truth is for civilized society, for the good of the community as a whole, judging a person's worth based on their appearance is detrimental.

A patriarchal society that has ingrained into the culture centuries of treating women as property, as dumb, as just there for breeding purposes, and as "evil temptresses of pure men who were just asking for it", is going through some serious growing pains as those who are in the position of power and privlege fight tooth and nail to not give up what they see as "normal", "acceptable" and, to some, even "right."

Right. I'll play ball with you and pretend for a minute that 'looking for a companion in life' is a behavior separated by clear and defined lines from all other interactions with people in life, which is obviously not the reality.

I'd like you to explain to me why it's justified to care about beauty in romantic relationships but not in any other kind of relationship. What's the difference between those two circumstances? On what basis does it suddenly become acceptable to start caring once romance is involved?

Also, I wonder on what basis you're making this an issue of men oppressing women. This applies equally to both genders - I fully expect women to care about attractiveness, and I welcome such judgements.

Modifié par David7204, 03 mai 2013 - 05:27 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

Wait, this **** is still going on?

Either you hate it because something set you off, or you like it because something didn't set you off.

Now can we just agree to disagree and move on already?

[David7204]

No.

I like stuff like this. It trains you to think.

[AlexMBrennan]

It is, however, one method. And you forget that Eva was playing as being a Doctor (scientist?) at the time.

So why pick an attractive platform with very noticeable... anatomically correct... features if you are trying to blend in?

The information in the body along with the ability to actually put it into practice would be an obvious bonus so that she could learn.

The information in the body was overwritten when EDI took control of it.

[MerinTB]

David7204 wrote...
Right. I'll play ball with you and pretend for a minute that 'looking for a companion in life' is a behavior separated by clear and defined lines from all other interactions with people in life, which is obviously not the reality.

Anyone who's married is, by definition (ignoring infedelity for the moment) not looking for a significant other.
Anyone who is in a steady relationship (again, ignoring cheating scum) is also by definition not looking any longer for a mate.
Anyone under the age of (I'll be generous here) 14 isn't looking for a life partner.
Anyone going to work in the check out line at a grocery store, or serving coffee at a Starbucks, or tuning cars at a garage, or guarding a warehouse at night are engaged in responsibilities that should perclude looking for someone to make out with, and most of them are probably too tired or busy (on the job) to really want to be hit on.
And, believe it or not, there are people, not in relationships, who are NOT looking for any kind of romantic/physical partner for an enormous myriad of reasons at all.  For short periods of time, long periods of time, or EVER.

So we'll just have to disagree on your backhanded, under your breath asserted factoid that "everything in life is about finding someone to bone on some level" and move on.

David7204 wrote...
I'd like you to explain to me why it's justified to care about beauty in romantic relationships but not in any other kind of relationship. What's the difference between those two circumstances? On what basis does it suddenly become acceptable to start caring once romance is involved?

When it comes to physical attraction to someone whom you are thinking of engaging in a romantic relationship, this is where appearance CAN BE a factor.  If looks matter to you (and for most people they matter more than a little bit, yes) then, yes, in your head you can be "judging" if they "measure up" to what you are looking for.  Eventually you may find your criteria are way too high for what you, yourself, can hope to acheive, but that's another topic of inflated expectations.

For friendship, what does it matter what your (male or female, regardless of if you are female or male yourself) friend that you chat with online, that you play games with on weekends with other friends, that you talk to at church, or in any other "non-dating" / "not-looking-for-a-spouse" situation, looks like?  If your male friend is forty pounds overweight and has chronic dandruff, or your female friend has a hairlip and bad acne, are you going to refuse to be their friend, refuse to play cards or crack jokes with them?

Really?

If so, there's a word for you that starts with the letter 's' and ends with the word 'low' ...

David7204 wrote...
Also, I wonder on what basis you're making this an issue of men oppressing women. This applies equally to both genders - I fully expect women to care about attractiveness, and I welcome such judgements.

Are you serious?

Women being judged on their appearance is somehow equal to women judging men on their appearance?  You believe that to be true?

If all other things were equal, if there was absolute equality between men and women, and our history was filled with female scientists, presidents, soldiers, buisness leaders, OR full of male actors losing their jobs when they start aging past thirty, men being rejected for cooking schools or decorating schools or fashion schools based on gender, and guys only made seventy cents for every dollar a woman made, and men had only just gotten the vote in America less than a century ago (and even more recent in other countries) leading to the UN having to adopt multiple conventions and declarations declaring that men had to be treated equally because the world was just being jerks to men--

--you would have a point.

History is NEITHER of those, however.  Women were property.  Women were chattle.  Women were not equal citizens.  Women are still not equals in gaming, business, science and more, and not for lack of desire nor ability.

This is like nonsense about reverse racism.

For the two to be the same, all things would have to be equal.

And they are FAR from equal. 

If a race car and a pick up truck both had the same accelaration, top speed and raced on a straight level track with identically skilled drivers, then they'd both cross the finish line at the same time.  That's all things being equal.  Race cars and pick up trucks, however, do NOT have the same acceleration nor top speed and races are rarely on straight, level tracks with drivers of equal skill.

Things being more balanced doesn't make them balanced.

Eighty is closer to one hundred than twenty is, but one hundred is still greater than eighty regardless.

Modifié par MerinTB, 03 mai 2013 - 06:36 .

[Morlath]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

It is, however, one method. And you forget that Eva was playing as being a Doctor (scientist?) at the time.

So why pick an attractive platform with very noticeable... anatomically correct... features if you are trying to blend in?

The information in the body along with the ability to actually put it into practice would be an obvious bonus so that she could learn.

The information in the body was overwritten when EDI took control of it.

So you're telling me that there aren't any attractive, large chested women smart women in the galaxy? That for simple fact of her being attractive and anatomically correct this stops her from being able to blend in?

And the information wasn't overwritten, the "personality matrix" was. EDI actually tells you she has information from the body that she can now use.

[Auld Wulf]

Xilizhra wrote...

Oh, hey, the "different opinion" option has the most votes. Quelle surprise.

Anyway, no, there's nothing wrong with EDI's body, and reactionary flailing in response to it is rather irksome.

Also just... rotten, poisonous, and bitter. Which pretty much sums up every single post I've ever seen Argolas post in my history here on BSN. Part of my negative opinion of this place as being something of an anti-intellectual ghetto is thanks to his sort of person.

EDI was a fantastic and well loved character. A lady friend of mine who absolutely hates sexualised characters (which includes Miranda) had absolutely no problems at all with EDI. Heck, you could even put EDI in a black Cerberus-like uniform if you wanted.

This just reeks of chest-thumping misogyny.

FOR FUTURE REFERENCE: Hey everyone, being overly sexualised and being pretty are two VERY different things. When you cross that line, you're crossing it into very ugly places.

Modifié par Auld Wulf, 03 mai 2013 - 06:55 .

[TheRealJayDee]

Hm, I don't really understand why the [Warning: Thread contaminated] label had been added to the thread title before the last post...

[AresKeith]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

Hm, I don't really understand why the [Warning: Thread contaminated] label had been added to the thread title before the last post...

There was another poster like that

[TheProtheans]

MerinTB wrote...

Are you serious?

Women being judged on their appearance is somehow equal to women judging men on their appearance?  You believe that to be true?

If all other things were equal, if there was absolute equality between men and women, and our history was filled with female scientists, presidents, soldiers, buisness leaders, OR full of male actors losing their jobs when they start aging past thirty, men being rejected for cooking schools or decorating schools or fashion schools based on gender, and guys only made seventy cents for every dollar a woman made, and men had only just gotten the vote in America less than a century ago (and even more recent in other countries) leading to the UN having to adopt multiple conventions and declarations declaring that men had to be treated equally because the world was just being jerks to men--

--you would have a point.

History is NEITHER of those, however.  Women were property.  Women were chattle.  Women were not equal citizens.  Women are still not equals in gaming, business, science and more, and not for lack of desire nor ability.

This is like nonsense about reverse racism.

For the two to be the same, all things would have to be equal.

And they are FAR from equal. 

If a race car and a pick up truck both had the same accelaration, top speed and raced on a straight level track with identically skilled drivers, then they'd both cross the finish line at the same time.  That's all things being equal.  Race cars and pick up trucks, however, do NOT have the same acceleration nor top speed and races are rarely on straight, level tracks with drivers of equal skill.

Things being more balanced doesn't make them balanced.

Eighty is closer to one hundred than twenty is, but one hundred is still greater than eighty regardless.

Now you're being ridiculous and making silly examples.
Women being judged on their appearance is somewhat equal to men being judged on their appearance.
Men are obviously different as they have body parts women do not.
I would say the judgement is mostly equal but men are more vocal because women would fear being referred to as ****s by other women.

[TheRealJayDee]

AresKeith wrote...

TheRealJayDee wrote...

Hm, I don't really understand why the [Warning: Thread contaminated] label had been added to the thread title before the last post...

There was another poster like that

[MegaSovereign]

Decontamination in progress.

[Argolas]

Auld Wulf wrote...

more of the usual.

I love you too.