All of those things sexualise him. Those traits just happen to be some of the things that women tend to find attractive in men. That's the point, men aren't sexualised the same way women are, because what makes men attractive to women isn't the same as what makes women attractive to men.
People need to stop this kind of false equivalence. Just because a guy isn't scantily clad and the camera doesn't linger on his ass doesn't mean that he isn't sexualised.
Thank you!
Like I said before. I don't care if they dress in their damn skivvies on their downtime. But when we're on the field they better do what Vega did and put on some damn gear.
That moment when a modern day character has better gear than futuristic characters 
The thing is, you have to look at why these traits are considered to be important pertaining to the notion of the "ideal man." It's because, and this isn't everyone obviously, but those traits are what makes a man appealing to a woman. Men's worth in society is, and pretty much always has been dictated by how useful they are to women, and as a result to society as a whole. There is a pressure on men to be this way because there is pressure on men to be a help to women. There's a reason firefighters are considered to be the most sexy guys compared to men in other professions, they exude all of those qualities in abundance. Courage, strength, confidence, selflessness. The fact that they have to stay in fantastic shape doesn't hurt either.
As for videogame characters, I think it's because it's escapism. Nobody wants to be average, especially if that's what you're dealing with in everyday life. The whole fun of videogames is doing things you can't IRL and being somebody else for a few hours.
Oh, I'm not disagreeing.
The basic thrust of my point is that, while the portrayal of women as being primarily valued for their sex appeal in every situation can be problematic, the idea that men should be valued most for their "power (physical/financial/social/ect.)" is also problematic.
My perspective comes from the fact that I'm a moderator on a forum for people with autism and other issues. Autistic males often have trouble living up to society's standards of what men "should" be, and I'm inclined to believe that, while women are often held to unrealistic standards of beauty, men are held to unrealistic standards of "power." Basically, a woman's worth is her t_ts, and a man's worth is in his wallet.
Obviously, YMMV.
That moment when a modern day character has better gear than futuristic characters
*snip*
XD
I'll just be happy if the devs keep their iconic outfits restricted to ship/hubs only. On the field I rather they look like it's time to wreck some ****. (or at least have the armor iconic but still functional. That is possible).
That moment when a modern day character has better gear than futuristic characters
Well, it's Batman (kind of). He can have any gadget and it will be all ok.
XD
I'll just be happy if the devs keep their iconic outfits restricted to ship/hubs only. On the field I rather they look like it's time to wreck some ****. (or at least have the armor iconic but still functional. That is possible).
They could also go the DAI route with companions Iconic look and armor to match their style
Oh, you're completely right. The actual characters are abominable criminals and - in the case of 50 Shades - the idea of consent is abandoned entirely in ways that are quite terrible. It was only that no one example immediately came to mind about the occupation, and then the Honest Trailers parody of 50 Shades came to mind.I apologize in advance for nitpicking, but the examples you're using both showcase male romantic leads that are extremely possessive and jealous, complete with paranoia and a kind of precautionary stalking, and then romanticize that characteristic as though it's something desirable in a male partner. Both of them would be infuriated by the very idea of lovers on the side.
Both stories are continually called out in academic studies as being a result of a patriarchal mentality, even while being written by women.
The point you're making though, about there being other important factors in the "usefulness" of a man than the size of their muscles, is completely understood.
Clear smooth skin, pretty eyes, and silky hair are probably 'useless' in determining the quality of a mate's genes and the health of their hypothetical child in the age of modern medicine.
They still matter.
Thank you!
I second this, nothing turns me off more than a woman behaving like a faux-man/poor man's man. If I wanted to date someone with proper masculinity,I'd pursue homosexuality.
They could also go the DAI route with companions Iconic look and armor to match their style
That'd worked nicely. Frontline fighters (save Bull but since his style mostly revolved around him getting tougher as he got his ass beat that at least fit) worse heavy gear and back fighters worse lighter armor.
Vivienne's outfit was exactly what I'd expect her to wear as was Cassandra's. No one's outfit made me tilt my head like Miranda's did. (It also helps that Vivienne has enough magic to make up for her lack of protection.)
I second this, nothing turns me off more than a woman behaving like a faux-man/poor man's man. If I wanted to date someone with proper masculinity,I'd pursue homosexuality.
You have some interesting ideas about what it's like to date men.
Yeah, it's crazy of me to think that homosexuals are still men.
And to add to that, the meta criticism of female writers internalising tropes from the culture.
Just to clarify, which cultural trope are you referring to here? Is it the whole lovers on the side thing?
I ask because I've seen a documentary about the Mosuo, a culture considered to be matriarchal. Marriage and long-term monogamy are not practiced; women are free to change partners as often as they like. IIRC, the documentary suggested that marriage and monogamy came into being primarily as a method of assuring paternity, not that it is something women would necessarily choose.
Or even Nicola Adams (Olympic Boxing champion)
In casual and combat gear
That'd worked nicely. Frontline fighters (save Bull but since his style mostly revolved around him getting tougher as he got his ass beat that at least fit) worse heavy gear and back fighters worse lighter armor.
Some armors in DAI even give IB a proper breastplate if you want.
Just to clarify, which cultural trope are you referring to here? Is it the whole lovers on the side thing?
I ask because I've seen a documentary about the Mosuo, a culture considered to be matriarchal. Marriage and long-term monogamy are not practiced; women are free to change partners as often as they like. IIRC, the documentary suggested that marriage and monogamy came into being primarily as a method of assuring paternity, not that it is something women would necessarily choose.
From the link
Political power in Mosuo society tends to be in the hands of males, which for many scientists disqualifies them as a true matriarchy, and they would be rather called "matrilineal".
It's a patriarchal feudal society(whose days are outnumbered due to modernity and tourism) meant to keep the lower classes out of high society with matrineal family formations.
That moment when a modern day character has better gear than futuristic characters
Seems legit
Some armors in DAI even give IB a proper breastplate if you want.
Yep.
But DAI did it nicely. I'd love it if future games stuck to that. I don't mind more fanfical armors as long as it makes sense for the character and the role they're playing in combat. (In ME the only people in light armor should be biotics, quarians (because lol shields) or people with tactical cloak).
That'd worked nicely. Frontline fighters (save Bull but since his style mostly revolved around him getting tougher as he got his ass beat that at least fit) worse heavy gear and back fighters worse lighter armor.
Vivienne's outfit was exactly what I'd expect her to wear as was Cassandra's. No one's outfit made me tilt my head like Miranda's did. (It also helps that Vivienne has enough magic to make up for her lack of protection.)
Why is magic a valid defense for no armor, but biotics and kinetic barriers aren't?
My perspective comes from the fact that I'm a moderator on a forum for people with autism and other issues. Autistic males often have trouble living up to society's standards of what men "should" be, and I'm inclined to believe that, while women are often held to unrealistic standards of beauty, men are held to unrealistic standards of "power." Basically, a woman's worth is her t_ts, and a man's worth is in his wallet.
I think it has more to do with the standards being so astronomically high and unrealistic than anything related to autism. "Normal" people are almost certain to not live up to those standards just as often.
Why is magic a valid defense for no armor, but biotics and kinetic barriers aren't?
Well, for one my biotic MaleShep still had to wear armor in combat, while Miranda did not.
And I generally expect sci-fi to be somewhat more grounded in realism than fantasy.
I think it has more to do with the standards being so astronomically high and unrealistic than anything related to autism. "Normal" people are almost certain to not live up to those standards just as often.
I agree. I was mainly just trying to explain the main source for my viewpoint.
But both Viv and Miranda are pretty much magic wielders who can use barriers and both will most likely encounter enemies using projectiles (arrows, guns et al)
As for realism, I guess I prefer my Sci fi to be just as crazy as any fantasy.
Well, for one my biotic MaleShep still had to wear armor in combat, while Miranda did not.
So does your FemShep, if you have one. Why did you qualify the statement with that? Anyway, different armor pieces also confer different bonuses in combat. Miranda's (and the rest of the other companions in ME2 as well) clothing is cosmetic only, and doesn't confer any benefits or stat bonuses. On top of that, it's for character customization, because a fair number of people like to make their Shepards look cool or "authentic" (for lack of a better term).
And I generally expect sci-fi to be somewhat more grounded in realism than fantasy.
So it's an entirely different standard, thus making the DA/ME comparison a bit of a moot point. Okay.
Why is magic a valid defense for no armor, but biotics and kinetic barriers aren't?
Because Miranda's biotics were never advanced enough to justify her relying on them for protection. (It's why she's a sentinel in the first place. She doesn't rely on her biotics like say Jack or Samara does. Gameplay and story say as much. Obviously she's not going to be as strong with them as someone who relies on them). Also look at what other biotics in the ME setting wear. Armor. And those are biotics that are Miranda's superior. Look at what other mages wear in the DA setting robes. (And those are mages that are below Vivienne's level). Miranda's biotics are advanced for a human yes...but she's still below any decent Asari (the main biotics, an adept Shepard, Jack, and Samara).
The only powerful biotic we witness not wearing armor is Benezia and she mostly has her mooks fight for her.
That's the difference.
Also biotics and kinetics barriers are only as powerful as the wielder. Miranda isn't that powerful in biotics that she can forgo her armor for them. That's my point. Jack and Samara (and an Adept Shepard) could.
Of course they'd all still be boned when it came to any hazardous environment but what can you do.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut