hyratel:

bikiniarmorbattledamage:

Could be a bit less boobplate-y, but pretty cool design nonetheless.

pfffft. there’s plenty of room under there for proper padding. look how much it slopes out right at the shoulder level

Yeah, it’s the rare instance of female armor being properly layered beneath the top surface of metal.
But what I meant is that it still has the boob bumps, which create a weak point right where the sternum is. I doubt that the golden ornamentation in that place actually helps the case.

Boobplate is not only superfluous design-wise (because for most armored women breast-flattening with sports bracorset or sarashi is obligatory part of padding anyway), it can also kill the wearer.

Just about the Sims post, I have a feeling the mods call them ‘female’ because Sims aren’t human, and in the game they’re called female and male (no man or woman). A bit of trivia, too, there’s a knight’s armour that, IIRC (I used custom content a lot – there’s a few issues with the sexualisation there, but a lot of women CC makers use good designs that are practical and not sexualising of the sims either, just avoid The Sims Resource), is the same for both F and M. :) No harm intended here.

But the ‘better’ females is not cool. Definitely don’t approve of that, but I’d say that’s made by quite a young person. There’s a community of custom content makers that don’t sexualise the clothing and makeup etc. of the sims either, it just depends what website you visit (personal livejournals and other blogs tend to be pretty good, Garden of Shadows usually is too). There’s good lingerie though! Sims is a tricky thing to debate because of its user generated nature.

Now you’re going to think I’m a misogynistic girl who defends Sims for her own interests. That’s definitely not what I intended and I’m sorry. 🙁 You can’t really calls sims ‘men and women’ because they aren’t at all. They strange creatures, just simulations. In Skyrim and any other game, they are men and women. If that makes sense? That doesn’t mean Sims should be sexualised though or treated the way they were in the CC you posted about. ‘Female’ is what you’d call a Sim woman though as for male

A long ask referring to the Skyrim mod posts that I intended to answer for some time now.

I’ll always stand by referring to sentient humanoid characters as “men”, “women” or “people” and if the game itself endorses using female/male as noun towards their cat- or lizard-person race… I’m NOT okay with that.
The characters clearly are designed to resemble humans, hell, the ones used to in thumnails for mod pack look VERY HUMAN to me, so there’s no reason to not call them “women”.

As discussed earlier with angercats, mod community is hard to discuss and judge as a whole. But we can agree that every modder should take personal responsibility for their creation, and that includes how it’s presented in both wording and visuals.

You can’t really calls sims ‘men and women’ because they aren’t at all. They strange creatures, just simulations. In Skyrim and any other game, they are men and women. If that makes sense?

Nope, it doesn’t make sense.
A fictional character created in the likeness of human (body and/or mind) is A PERSON, albeit fictional one. And a person may be female or male (or other), but can not be “a female” or “a male” (an “it’) rather than a woman or a man (a “she” or “he”).

And I won’t say that you’re misogynist, because  what you’re saying doesn’t serve patriarchy. You just didn’t realize that make-believe characters also have personhood that could be erased through inconsiderate wording.

Note: Please, ergoexistence, next time do not refer to mods as “Sims”, it’s really confusing when we’re talking about a game that’s neither simulation genre nor part of The Sims franchise.

enteirory:

bikiniarmorbattledamage:

ravenhull submitted

One thing that’s always bugged me just as much, if not more, as battle bikini’s and boobplates is what I sometimes refer to a ‘spandex chainmaile’.

Read more

Just adding: Wearing chainmail over your naked body would be the most fucking uncomfortable thing ever. Aside from metal being cold, having it brush against your skin constantly would really hurt after a while.

This! Though “having it brush against your skin constantly would really hurt after a while” is misunderstanding of the century, so let’s make it clear:

WEARING CHAINMAIL DIRECTLY ON YOUR BODY WOULD PEEL YOUR SKIN OFF.

eschergirls:

(Content warning for video: sexualized violence, self-mutilation, sexual assault, rape)

Hey it’s another video! (Thank you to everybody who submitted this to me.)  This one is by MMO Attack contributor Joe Plork and is about hyper-sexualizing in video games, and how this is actually a really immature and superficial take on “sex” because actual sex, sexuality and sexual encounters are not actually often in games, and it’s just “hey look at the boobs while she beats somebody up or kills somebody or is killed.  Look at the pornface while she’s shooting a gun or being headbutted!” and what not.  It also goes to something that was said in the comments on this blog recently, that when people say “sex sells” about this stuff, that’s actually not true, because no sex is actually being sold.  We’re selling sexualization of women, but generally, not actual sex OR sexuality.

As Jimquisition talked about in a previous video, developers have been told by publishers to actually not have their female characters have straight sexual relationships because it’ll turn off the straight male audience.  We want women in games to be sexualized, but not sexual.  We want female characters in porn poses, with orgasm faces, curved spines indicating lordosis behavior, skin showing, battle bikinis, angles that show butts, close ups that show boobs, etc, while she’s fighting, or getting beaten up, or captured, or falling, or etc etc etc, but not actually having sex.  And we end up with stuff that just ends up being ridiculous with the battle bikinis, Ed Benes butt shots where it looks like everything is being drawn from the perspective of a gnome, and women who look like they’re orgasming or posing when they’re supposed to be injured or dead.  And even when they’re drawing stuff that’s meant to be sexy, like a woman in a bikini, there’s still often issues like breaking her spine because you just have to get as many sexy bits into the scene as possible.  It’s like everything is drawn as if the audience or creator might never see another sexy woman again, and we better make sure that every panel there’s a chance to get boobs and butt, we do it.  And it hurts storytelling and characterization.

Plus, as my friend always says: if everything is sexualized, then nobody is actually sexual.  If all female characters are always swaying their hips, in boobs and butt poses, in revealing outfits, with the same faces, expressions, lipstick, eyeliner, etc, whether they’re fighting, eating, or injured, then it’s really hard to convey that any of the female characters are different, especially if you want to convey that some of them are sexual and others aren’t. There’s nothing wrong with a character being sexual, but often they aren’t actually being sexual, they’re just being sexualized while doing non-sexual things.

It’s like a Michael Bay move: overusing CGI, explosions, rapid scene cuts, etc, doesn’t create an effective action movie, it creates a giant mess that’s hard to follow, takes away from telling a story, and can take viewers out of the movie.  Just like use of action can be gratuitous or effective, so can use of sexualization, and sex.  Having everything explode all the time and huge CGI battles may make a movie “action packed”, but not necessarily a good movie, having battle bikinis and boobs and butt fighting poses may make a comic or video game “sexualized”, but does not necessarily make it sexy or sexual, and can be just as distracting and harmful to storytelling as overusing CGI or explosions.

Relevant commentary on the huge difference between sexualization and sexuality in games (and by extent, other media).