I though we were still on muscle arguement, but okay, we are on breast. That don't show on men if they are thin, show as moobs if they are fat or show as pecs if they are muscular.. in any form not seeing as something that is sexual and needs to be covered up.
You know nothing about the human body if you think that breasts and pecs are the same.
Women weren't the target audience for either Rambo or Terminator, even if eventually women watch those movies. So saying that it's done to sexualize is ridiculous - it was done to appeal to male audience, and nobody in their right mind would say that it was done to appeal to them sexually. Unless we're talking about power fantasy, but that's still different than things done to appeal of gratify on the level of sexual attraction *facepalm*
While you are correct about Rambo, there is an another 80s military movie that was in part geared towards a female demographic by sexualizing the male characters: Top Gun.
Google Top Gun and volleyball. All those oiled up shirtless dudes weren't there for the people who just wanted to watch Tomcat-on-Mig action.
I said that the mindset of more exposure=more sexiness is childish - which it IS.
Where exactly are you basing that on?
I said that the mindset of more exposure=more sexiness is childish - which it IS. That doesn't mean that your entire line of thinking, everywhere, ever is childish - just that mindset.
Also - if you don't want people to lose patience with you, you may want to stop posting things like that YouTube video, which is in no way less condescending (and done earlier) that me pointing out things in strong terms.
Can you prove it's childish?
You started being condescending literally pages before I posted that.
So what's your point? This statement is entirely devoid of meaning or context. Sexually, they are exactly the same. Women like muscles in the same way that men like t**ties.
You're right, they aren't, because they're entirely separate entities. "Boobs" are deposits of fat stored in the chest (which are more prevalent in women because women are the ones who give birth, and because women naturally have higher levels of body fat than men). Pecs, or pectorals, are the dominant muscle group in the chest. Both men and women can have pecs, and both men and women can have boobs. Only on men it is almost universally regarded as unattractive, so your "boobs = sexualized" loses validity.
Every time you say the word "feminist", you lose points. Same goes for your smiley faces. You keep putting those in here like you're being clever or cute.
Tip for presenting an argument: don't use weasel words to make your case. It's nonfalsifiable and nonverifiable. It's a statement devoid of meaning.
@underlined: Just get on with it and say something stupid about a "male power fantasy". We know you're dying to.
You don't have base on that arguement either.
Boobs are sexualised in western society and that way you said they are partial nudity when men showing breast aren't.
Points from you? You don't need to count points for me 
(-1 point).
I can post of list of examples if you want. You can do the same for counter-arguement. But really that's how I see the situation as.
You don't get to decide if what I say is stupid or not. But I can say it, if you admit that you were only speaking how boobs aren't more sexualised than pecs just because you can use it as counter-arguement against mine and not because you really think so.
Which has to do with the law, not sexuality. Public nudity is illegal in a great deal many places for both men and women unless it's specifically allowed.
Law is informed by culture. If female is categorized as "naked" while being topless - and men aren't (they can be bare-chested on beaches and anywhere, say, swimsuits are allowed) then we have a clear difference here.
Heck, where I live, some women were even fined for breast feeding their children, while guys can sit topless and nobody bats an eye on it.
You could argue that it's a double standard - we can discuss about if that's fair, sure, or why's there a the difference in perception in the first place.
But that doesn't change the fact that as of now, naked male torso is seen as less offensive/less sexual by wide public, in our cultural circle - than bare female torso.
You don't have base on that arguement either.
Boobs are sexualised in western society and that way you said they are partial nudity when men showing breast aren't.
Points from you? You don't need to count points for me
I can post of list of examples if you want. You can do the same for counter-arguement. But really that's how I see the situation as.
You don't get to decide if what I say is stupid or not. But I can say it, if you admit that you were only speaking how boobs aren't more sexualised than pecs just because you can use it as counter-arguement against mine and not because you really think so.
Partial nudity for men showing off their chest is sexual even if you don't believe it is.
Honestly, you're not even making any sense, Mr. Supremacist. I don't think I ever voiced any of my opinion on anything even remotely similar to first "argument" in quotation marks (honestly, I'm not even sure how I should address it - it's a mess) and I've never stated anything that's anywhere close to the 2nd "quote".
If you think I said people who say the first " " and people who say the second " " are the same group, you obviously didn't read my post.
Haha are we really telling other people what they believe now?
Can you prove it's childish?
You started being condescending literally pages before I posted that.
I already DID. Also - how was I being condescending? Also, don't you think you were an angel yourself.
If you think I said people who say the first " " and people who say the second " " are the same group, you obviously didn't read my post.
... I think it's you who didn't read my post, because it's definitely NOT what I was talking about.
Partial nudity for men showing off their chest is sexual even if you don't believe it is.
And it's not banned compared to women being partially naked because?
Boobs are sexualised in western society
Not intrinsically. Which I and others have stated more than once.
You don't get to decide if what I say is stupid or not. But I can say it, if you admit that you were only speaking how boobs aren't more sexualised than pecs just because you can use it as counter-arguement against mine and not because you really think so.
I'm not entirely convinced this was a coherent thought. It English not your first language? I'm well within my rights to say that something is stupid. And no, boob are not more sexualized than pecs. The very fact that they are seen as gross and unattractive on men is proof enough of that.
Law is informed by culture.
Yeah, it's also against the law in some states to own a pet elephant and to carry around ice cream in your pants pockets, but no reasonable person is going to claim that we have some sort of cultural bias against elephants or ice cream.
And it's not banned compared to women being partially naked because?
Because the law says so. I told you that on the previous page.
Law is informed by culture.
Law is also terribly uninformed sometimes.
Example: a guy gets pinned down and raped by a woman by her riding atop him. That guy cannot legally say he was raped because the law requires that for it to be rape there has to be penetration. Since he was not penetrated, according to the law it is not rape.
An extreme example I know, but it clearly presents the point that the law can have double standards.
Law is also terribly uninformed sometimes.
Example: a guy gets pinned down and raped by a woman by her riding atop him. That guy cannot legally say he was raped because the law requires that for it to be rape there has to be penetration. Since he was not penetrated, according to the law it is not rape.
An extreme example I know, but it clearly presents the point that the law can have double standards.
.... And that disagrees with my point HOW? In fact, it perfectly compliments it, so thank you
Same 5 or 6 people beating this one to death..LOL.
This thread is more fun than the game.
I see Realism beaten to death a lot.
Get real people. In this game I can >>
1. wave my fingers and fire shoots out and kills things.. How many of you can do that, that is not real.
2. I raise my staff, and the dead come back to life. How many of you can do that, that is not real.
3. Dragon's breathing fire. Anyone here ever actually see a fire breathing dragon, Come on!
4. Zombie's running around, all kinds of impossible stuff in this game, unless your on acid all the time, you won't ever see it.
This thread is so stupid, but it is fun to watch people try to come up with reasons why there prudish life style should be forced on everyone else, and that they are always right, and no one should ever disagree with them, because there always right.
I Absolutely love it, please you all continue...When I get a little bored with the game I come to this thread to bust out laughing... It's a Blast!
4. People running around with red crystal's growing out of there body. Did you actually ever see that, Geesh!
5. Realism, Ha,Ha,Ha!
Haha are we really telling other people what they believe now?
Just give up, we reached the cliche you predicted six minutes after predicting it, it's sad.
I just want to say that the cultural argument of why some people are shirtless in battle actually works, and nobody is really being hypocritical about it. Yes, Bull wears no shirt, it's a cultural thing. Neither do the Avvar, male and female, and nobody is getting angry about the women not wearing shirts but ignoring the men (although the women may be wearing some sort of bikini-style thing under that body paint, it's hard to tell. Also I hope they are simply because doing physical activity without some sort of breast support hurts.) It's not a double standard, we simply haven't seen any proper Qunari women in game other than Tallis, and Viddathari seem to dress differently anyways.
Also, on the topic of shirtless men in battle versus bikini-wearing women, there is a difference. In many designs, men are very muscular, and their lack of clothing shows that off. Obviously this can be seen as sexy (the same way I would see Cassandra's non boob-plate armour as sexy, dang) but it also is a very clear show of strength. But the difference with women is that a lot of designs for near-topless female armour are explicitly about sexualization. Now, if the women wore something more like a sports bra (because I would empathize with anyone fighting while wearing a bikini, ouch) and it was for cultural reasons, I'd be all for it! Sure, it can be seen as sexy, but if it makes sense and it's also about them displaying their strength and muscles like shirtless men, then most people probably wouldn't have a problem with it.
That's the difference between topless fighting and boob plate. Usually, when people wear little or no armour up top (and it isn't done explicitly for the male or female gaze) then it's for cultural or personal reasons, or maybe because they're a sort of fighter who doesn't take hits. But boob plate is nonsensical in a world where everyone else wears armour that won't, y'know, kill you if you trip and land on your front. There's no reason for it other than sexiness. Even if the woman is making the decision to wear it, it's still about sexiness. (And she's damn stupid for wanting to wear boob plate tbh)
Also I'll forever maintain that in my opinion boob plate is ugly as hell. Armour that curves around the female figure instead of cupping the boobs (which is a ridiculous notion, because literally no clothing other than bras or bikinis does this. Even tight fitting shirts go flat across boobs instead of dipping into the cleavage) will always be way more attractive to me.
.... And that disagrees with my point HOW? In fact, it perfectly compliments it, so thank you
I never said I was disagreeing with that point. I was just pointing out that what the law says and what actually is are not always the same.
In that case, the law says the guy is not a rape victim even when he is.
In this case, the law says topless men isn't nudity and topless women is even when both are the same thing.
Law is also terribly uninformed sometimes.
Example: a guy gets pinned down and raped by a woman by her riding atop him. That guy cannot legally say he was raped because the law requires that for it to be rape there has to be penetration. Since he was not penetrated, according to the law it is not rape.
An extreme example I know, but it clearly presents the point that the law can have double standards.
Err, what? Men have had laws protecting them against rape since at least 1980. Men being raped just isn't taken as seriously as women being raped because people are stupid. Those laws are really the only sort of safety net than male rape victims have. You never here about any shelters for male rape victims, nor any therapists who specialize in sexual assault for men. Legally, men are protected the same as women are, men just don't report it as often as women due to being socially ostracized or the rape not being taken seriously. It's still a serious offense, people just don't care. Or, rather, don't care as much.
Not intrinsically. Which I and others have stated more than once.
I'm not entirely convinced this was a coherent thought. It English not your first language? I'm well within my rights to say that something is stupid. And no, boob are not more sexualized than pecs. The very fact that they are seen as gross and unattractive on men is proof enough of that.
It does seem pretty coherent to me. English is not my first language, but it doesn't really stop my brains having coherents thoughts you know, it mostly affects my grammar and typos. And how does that even prove your point? Boobs aren't sexualised on women since they are unattractive on men? Conclusion: they are sexualised on women or not sexualised at all. I think you are meaning they are sexualised on women only (that doesn't go against anything I have said) and that doesn't prove at all that they are as sexualised as pecs. My claims that law bans showing female breast does however prove that they are more sexualised than pecs as does that bare boobs rank up movie rating when pecs don't.
Because the law says so. I told you that on the previous page.
You are getting there, law says so why?.
And if male muscles are as sexualised as boobs why does this incoherent law exist? What should be done to it? Do you want women to walk on street topless? Or should men cover up muscles? What about movie ratings, should there be change? If yes, I recommend those feminist movements for you 
I just want to say that the cultural argument of why some people are shirtless in battle actually works, and nobody is really being hypocritical about it. Yes, Bull wears no shirt, it's a cultural thing. Neither do the Avvar, male and female, and nobody is getting angry about the women not wearing shirts but ignoring the men (although the women may be wearing some sort of bikini-style thing under that body paint, it's hard to tell. Also I hope they are simply because doing physical activity without some sort of breast support hurts.) It's not a double standard, we simply haven't seen any proper Qunari women in game other than Tallis, and Viddathari seem to dress differently anyways.
We've seen Rasaan, a female Qunari. And there were complaints that she was dressed inappropriately even though she is from the same Qunari culture that allows topless men. That is a double standard.
Also, on the topic of shirtless men in battle versus bikini-wearing women, there is a difference. In many designs, men are very muscular, and their lack of clothing shows that off. Obviously this can be seen as sexy (the same way I would see Cassandra's non boob-plate armour as sexy, dang) but it also is a very clear show of strength. But the difference with women is that a lot of designs for near-topless female armour are explicitly about sexualization. Now, if the women wore something more like a sports bra (because I would empathize with anyone fighting while wearing a bikini, ouch) and it was for cultural reasons, I'd be all for it! Sure, it can be seen as sexy, but if it makes sense and it's also about them displaying their strength and muscles like shirtless men, then most people probably wouldn't have a problem with it.
That's the difference between topless fighting and boob plate. Usually, when people wear little or no armour up top (and it isn't done explicitly for the male or female gaze) then it's for cultural or personal reasons, or maybe because they're a sort of fighter who doesn't take hits. But boob plate is nonsensical in a world where everyone else wears armour that won't, y'know, kill you if you trip and land on your front. There's no reason for it other than sexiness. Even if the woman is making the decision to wear it, it's still about sexiness. (And she's damn stupid for wanting to wear boob plate tbh)
Also I'll forever maintain that in my opinion boob plate is ugly as hell. Armour that curves around the female figure instead of cupping the boobs (which is a ridiculous notion, because literally no clothing other than bras or bikinis does this. Even tight fitting shirts go flat across boobs instead of dipping into the cleavage) will always be way more attractive to me.
But why not let there be the option for people who do want it? Who cares if it is stupid(though there has been links saying the lethality of such armor is innaccurate), that is a choice they should be able to make for their character. And anyway, the realism argument falls apart with what the armors protect us from anyway.
Options are one of the staples, if not the staple, of RPGs. So let there be options.
I never said I was disagreeing with that point. I was just pointing out that what the law says and what actually is are not always the same.
In that case, the law says the guy is not a rape victim even when he is.
In this case, the law says topless men isn't nudity and topless women is even when both are the same thing.
Yet, like I said, law is often informed by culture. And that culture can say many things about people immersed in it. The fact that in law male rape is treated not as seriously as female rape exposes culture's attitude towards rape on male (though it's not like there isn't an issue with approach towards any rape in Western culture. How many times it's the victim who's blamed and not the perpetrator?).
Same with nudity. This law says something about culture it emerged from - in that case, that people generally don't view male torso on the same level as they view female torso. Simple as that.
Yet, like I said, law is often informed by culture. And that culture can say many things about people immersed in it. The fact that in law male rape is treated not as seriously as female rape exposes culture's attitude towards rape on male (though it's not like there isn't an issue with approach towards any rape in Western culture. How many times it's the victim who's blamed and not the perpetrator?).
Same with nudity. This law says something about culture it emerged from - in that case, that people generally don't view male torso on the same level as they view female torso. Simple as that.
And there's where we disagree. You are fine with how culture defines it(what constitutes nudity, not the rape thing). I am not. It is a double standard.
Retour en haut