@Minevese I can just imagine the "articles" now. "Elves of the High Forest- See them in all their sexy glory!", "Get it on like the Dwarven Forgemasters- All Night Long", "A Day in the Life of Sexy Suzi Sorceress: She's sure to Enchant You".
Conan's female sidekick strikes out on her own: by WillOBrien by Geoff--K This looks like something a superhero would wear… by MilicaCLK "I'll wear armor, but give you plenty of access to my vital areas!"
I think the odd contrast is that on the male side such things were welcomed (it became a fashion with the codpiece, presumably it was thought that a man with a larger whangdoodle required it (in reality it was padded with sawdust, straw, and other materials)). An enhancement of the male figure was interpreted as a good thing. Certain tribes still use things like gourds as, uh... protection. On the female side, it is interpreted as exactly the opposite, any image that accentuates their figure is a bad thing—an image supposedly only appealing to the opposite gender.
I find it odd, to say the least. I suppose the difference is that a lot of men want to appear muscle-bound and have big wangs so they don't mind being depicted as such in fantasy.
Most fantasy dudes are covered up much more realistically than fantasy women. You can browse the images here and see how often men are depicted half-naked rather than women. It's almost surprising when I see it in a male image, but never surprising when I see it in an image of a fantasy woman.
@LadyRhian, I meant that as a reply to your "it's not like we insist that male characters must show of a perfectly ripped 8pack and enormous whangdoodles to show that they are male." That was already a thing for centuries, which is what I was trying to point out. There's far less outcry about unrealistic muscle cuirass or humongous codpieces in real history, or incredibly unrealistic and overboard armour on males in fantasy.
The rest of the armour in the following image is fine—but that codpiece, I swear they moulded the rest of the armour around his penis.
Can you imagine what would happen if a man fell over onto that codpiece? Huge codpieces being worn as a fashion and muscle plates really are only there to show that they are male.
I just don't understand why this, the above image, is "amusing" and more or less "acceptable" by most people. Thankfully, you don't see these codpieces being portrayed very often in artwork, but pec-plate(? I don't know what to call it) is quite common in fantasy.
This doesn't apply to most of the images you've posted here. Most of those just make me cringe. The reply was specific to the image you posted in the other topic.
@Troodon80 My point was that this isn't necessary with men because men are the default when it comes to warriors- we don't need to see or know that this character is a male because of his 8 pack abs or giant whangdoodle- when we see a warrior, it's a male 8 or 9 times out of 10. The whole "muscle plate" and "whangdoodle protector/codpiece" are there to intimidate- not to inform people about the sex of the person inside the armor. (Or entice, in the manner of the codpiece on clothing- when my family had an intact poodle, he used to lick himself and proudly display the result to the neighborhood from our front steps, a "Hey, girls, look what I got!" kind of thing.) It's not for the same reason women are depicted in boob plate or with half their body showing. Yes, its sexualized, but not for the same reason.
As for the armor codpiece, I doubt the man who wore it was that big. That's a sausage or a bologna, not a, um, "Hot Dog". He'd have trouble getting that into a woman without ripping her completely open, or at least causing severe damage. And while I do know someone in a band who has a very large whangdoodle, he's not a nice guy because he *enjoys* hurting his partners, or even damaging them, with it. Yeah, way to go, band-guy. You win "nicest person of the year… IN HELL" award.
As for the armor codpiece, I doubt the man who wore it was that big.
Exactly, it's padded. Which begs the question as to why it really needs to be that big. In battle, it's not going to intimidate, it's going to be a target. It offers a nice 90 degree angle that a sword could fit onto when attacking from the side, or, if the wearer falls over, it could do some rather nasty damage. It doesn't need to be there, it's really only there for show. It's there to say "look how masculine I am!"
As for the armor codpiece, I doubt the man who wore it was that big.
Exactly, it's padded. Which begs the question as to why it really needs to be that big. In battle, it's not going to intimidate, it's going to be a target. It offers a nice 90 degree angle that a sword could fit onto when attacking from the side, or, if the wearer falls over, it could do some rather nasty damage. It doesn't need to be there, it's really only there for show. It's there to say "look how masculine I am!"
Its a political statement. I'm the big man around here. Also Henry was a short arse and was constantly paranoid about his size...
Armor that accentuates the figure is actually kind of a bad thing- you want padding under that to protect you from the force of the blow going through the leather and metal and directly into your body. That's another reason that "Boob Plate" is bad. It doesn't protect your breastbone very well at all. And it's been pointed out before that the "vee" shape made by putting breast-shaped projections there drive blows directly into that area, which only makes it worse- you'll get hit there more often than if you have a domed shape covering the chest that will make blows bounce off or at least away from that vulnerable area. Plate armor protects the best- it's curved so that blows usually bounce off rather than going through. Chain mail, if you don't wear some kind of leather or cloth padding beneath, gets driven into your skin. Go google "Chains embedded in the necks of dogs", if you want to see the cringe-worthy effects *that* can cause!
Any woman warrior who knows what she is doing should therefore be wearing at least somewhat realistic armor. If they aren't, I see an idiot who has no place being on a field of battle, because she is essentially sword fodder. So, in addition to being annoyed at seeing these unrealistically dressed women in armor, my mind makes the value judgement that women dressed to show off their bodies with coverage gaps and whatnot are idiots as well. I know that part is just me- but really, how smart is it to not take advantage of every ounce of coverage you can get when going into a battle. Sure, you can say the woman is going for distraction, but one stupid move can get you spitted and dead. I think life is paramount over the chance of being seductive.
That may be the case with some men, but not with me. :-P I actually don't like it when I'm forced to appear as a huge bodybuilder type character - in fact I probably like it about as much as girls like being forced to appear as a buxom woman in a mail bikini. XD
I am of a similar mind. My point is that I don't quite understand why one is not as ridiculed as the other. I am not referring to anyone here, though, but if you picked a group of men and women and showed a side-by-side comparison of king Henry's armour on one side and the above image on the other, people will say something like "that guy has a huge wang/codpiece," possibly an "ugh" from the women and nothing more will be said because who cares? (I do)
The other image will get the usual "boobs!" from some of the men while everyone else proclaims sexism.
I just found the contrast between one form of sexism/objectification and another odd depending on which gender is affected by it. It is especially prevalent in artwork. Men are depicted as manly-men who are impeccable in every way or who are unrealistically musclebound and handsom, 'perfect male,' while women are depicted as womanly-women who are just about perfect in every way (not including dress code) with unrealistically perfect bodies (not even a tiny scrape on most of the women depicted in the images here, even though in some cases their clothes are ripped), 'perfect female.' Both focus on body, and many go directly for figure and posture when drawing so as to accentuate the form. It seems like men don't care enough to make a fuss about it when it is directed at them, though.
@Troodon80 Men and women are both sexualized in fantasy art (and other kinds of art as well). The problem for women is that men are sexualized as strong and powerful. They are usually posed to show themselves as ready for combat, etc. Women tend to be sexualized as "Objects to look at and lust for"- the brokeback pose that shows both T&A at the same time, posed as unready for combat, showing off her assets or drawn and posed in such a way to make the viewer lust for her and after her.
This is not true in all cases- but an awful lot of women are posed to titillate, not to be strong and powerful. When the character is posed that way just to be sexy, you can generally tell. A man is almost never posed like that. This is why, when people say, "Men and women are both sexualized in pictures!", they are missing the point. Yes, they are posed in a sexualized fashion-but for entirely different reasons. And until most men are posed to be mere sex objects for women or gay men to lust after, it's not the same thing at all. Men are generally posed to make people say, "I want to BE him!" and women are posed to make people think, "I want to DO her." Do you see the difference?
As for the picture, yes, this is slightly sexualized. I figured she was wearing chain under those plates (and the pants), as plate mail is really more like "plates over chain" in AD&D/D&D. The King Henry armor would be Field Plate or Full Plate.
I may have to post that Tom Preston comic again:
Imagine that most male fantasy characters looked like (and were posed like) this, even when supposed to be participating in a fight: (by SniperStalker) (also by SniperStalker)
I think you'd find that tiring (and sexist) after a very short time.
I never found such pictures particularly titillating.
The boobs of these women are too big, too round, and too pert. Some of them actually look as if there are metal implants under the skin. I mean, come on, IRL, we don't see women with such boobs.
@jacobtan You know that, even if a particular picture or pictures doesn't appeal to you, it doesn't change the intent behind them, right? So even if, say, Solid Snake isn't my thing, I can tell that picture was posed to sexualize a male character in the same way that women so often are...
Two more female characters posed to look sexy rather than powerful. Yeah, they have guns, but that doesn't make them powerful. The girl with the dark hair is even doing the "brokeback" pose!
You know, why hasn't anyone come up with a new monster for the DnD world? It could be a long-lost cousin of the beholder - if the beholder is one giant floating eyeball, the boobolder would be a pair of giant floating boobs.
It would deal bludgeoning damage, smother victims to death, and spray corrosive lactic acid. When slain, it yields a crop of yogurt.
I could do up a "Monster Manual" entry for the Boobolder if anyone is interested XD
@LadyRhian, I am almost certain the point has been lost among the text, so I will summarise: the objectification of people based on gender is bad. This should not be 'objectification of women is bad,' but 'objectification of men? Eh, so what?' Men may be portrayed as powerful, but that plays into the archaic fantasy notion that 'women only like powerful men.' To a certain degree it is still true, there is a whole lot of women who will swoon at the mention of people like Brad Pitt. The notion of 'provider and protector' still rings true in many instances, and that is what the male objectification plays to, what the artwork of the 'strong, powerful, heroic man' plays to. If it's not the portrayal of being godly in appearance, then it it the portrayal as a dolt, clumsy or even as a captive. Here's an article.
Generally, the archaic fantasy thought goes like this: For men, it's "I want to do her." For women, it's "I want him to do me."
How are either of those okay by any sort of standard? Generally, however, the former is bad while the latter accepted. I wasn't actually debating whether one was good or bad before now, I was merely pointing what the oddity that one was acceptable while the other was bad, while I personally consider both to be on par.
My point is that I don't quite understand why one is not as ridiculed as the other.
It is. It just seems to be less common, but in my first post, I gave Sarevok's armour as much attention as Aribeth's.
But as I mentioned in a previous post—I am not talking about responses in this topic, I am talking about society. Artists draw men with huge, er... Organs or otherwise perfect in appearance, and women equally exaggerated as buxom and gravity defying. Of the two, the one that will get the most public outcry as being sexist is the portrayal of the woman. If the portrayal of the man gets any attention, it is probably more about "won't someone think of the children!" because the image is not suitable for every viewer (as the outcry, or lack of, with the frontal nudity in Grand Theft Auto 4 would suggest) — but is otherwise a perfect representation. Apparently.
As the article I linked earlier suggests, objectification of men is apparently not worth getting huffy about and so very few people care.
While I agree that both sides are objectified, I think that men are responsible for both more than women are. And no, that isn't just personifying women as objects of desire, but also of drawing the men with perfectly god-like statures.
Speaking of decency and standards, there is NOTHING wrong with sexuality. However there is an appropriate place for it and an appropriate audience.
The problem IS the complete lack of reality in the images,as has been stated. If I create art that shows a level of perfection in either gender that is unobtainable, what am I saying to the viewer? Well that is where Lady Rhian's and others arguments come into play... Who is the viewer and what is the artist's intent of the image to the viewer? The more common images of men are created to empower men and show their strength and virility. Are they sexist and degrading? Maybe, who is the intended audience? But I guarantee you that the picture of the extremely voluptuous female wearing the +5 celestial bikini by Victoria is intended to titillate and entice males, who make up the overwhelming majority of consumers of fantasy media. Ever look at mods for games like Skyrim? Usually the top mods are the ones that change the armor into the bikinis.
Unfortunately the men get a bit of this as well, the average male is about 5'9" tall and weighs about 180 lbs, has brown hair, and brown eyes. Average "male size" is 5". He is portrayed as a 6'6" 280 lb swelled musculed, hulking god with long flowing blonde hair, blue eyes, tanned skin and who is fearsome to his enemies, honourable to his friends, and is irresistible to women.
The average woman is 5' 4" tall, weighs about 140 lbs, has brown hair, and brown eyes. The average bra size is a 34 C, which is up from a 32 B from about a decade ago. She is portrayed a a 6' tall 120 lb, smouldering eyed, pouting lipped, come hither expression wearing, voluptuous goddess, wearing some form of painted on armor that conforms to her figure or the latest offerings from pages of the Sune's Secret catalogue. She like our male friend above is viewed as fearsome to her enemies, honourable to her friends, and is irresistible to men.
The average age of gamers is 32 and 66% are male. Woman account for approximately 11% of game designers and 3% of programmers. So woman buy games, but men make games... so it's hard to call foul when you are mainly responsible for both misrepresentations... both genders like some eye candy, but I think it's a little out of proportion and scale most of the time.
Hopefully one day reality and fantasy, sexualization and empowerment will be like resses peanut butter cups... something that blends together 2 things we like to be better than either one alone.
@Fighting_Ferret I was about to say that while a woman viewing a male image might think, "That guy is hot, I want him to do me."- that's not the purpose those images of men are created for. They are created to make a man think, "I wanna be this guy!" even if only by imagining themselves in that position. Even the non-muscular, slender, wiry guys (or the thin, roguish, witty and wiry guys) are there for men to imagine themselves to be- not to be looked at by women as someone to whom they want to bed. But women, by and large, are there for men to imagine themselves as having or getting.
That women sometimes think a depicted guy is hot does not change what the image was intended to portray- someone a man would or could want to be. Nowadays, this is changing, and the change is a welcome one, but there is still plenty of the old, "Hot woman I want to do" rather than "Authentically strong woman" depicted in fantasy art.
Yes, there are even "man sexualized for the gaze of women and gay men" pictures out there. But again, that's vanishingly rare compared to the number of pictures that are "woman sexualized for the gaze of straight men" pictures. Bikini armor, armor with strategic cut-outs that show off women's bodies and body parts, up skirt and panty shots- these are all for the delectation of the male gaze. Women can want to be hot, it's true. But we also want to be seen as something more than T&A. I'd rather have a man see me being myself, and say, "Wow, you're hot!" than have a man looking down my shirt or at the size of my bust and thinking, or even saying, "Wow, that's hot!". And when you see enough pictures of women being depicted as hot for what is really their butt or bits hanging out (or barely covered), that's depressing. Women get the idea that this is the only part or parts of them that matter.
Male characters can be fat, ugly, homely or just average and still be portrayed as powerful and capable of being emulated. Where are the female characters that are the same and still get portrayed as powerful or someone we should emulate or want to be? But no. Women have to be pretty or beautiful, women have to have a near-perfect shape and, usually, wear something that if it wasn't made out of metal or leather, be more at home on a stripper or sex worker, even if they are in the middle of combat. It's a double standard.
@Fighting_Ferret, I couldn't agree more. I am merely pointing out the difference between the types of sexism in popular culture. The point is that there is objectification and stereotypical roles on both sides, regardless of who is responsible for it, but one is simply accepted and tolerated while the other one is incredibly bad. It really boils down to a simple question: is sexism something to tolerate, or is it incredibly bad? It can't be both, and there's really no excuses to be made; it's not a case of 'yes, it exists, but...'
In other words, @Troodon80, men are sexualized differently from women- so it's not the same. Saying that because, "Sexualized" is used in both places doesn't make them equal.
@LadyRhian, I'm not saying 'sexualised', I'm saying 'objectified.' I am also not saying that it's on the same scale. I'm asking whether it should be ignored as it typically is, or whether it should be fought against. Apparently, then, the definition of 'objectification' for women = 'sexism and bad,' while 'objectification' for men = 'yeah, so?' In accordance with that attitude, then, objectification is only 'bad' when the person it affects lets it get to them. Women should fight against the stereotype, but men shouldn't? Why shouldn't men? Personally, I don't want to be Arnold Schwarzenegger, I don't want to be Brad Pitt or Matt Damon, and yet media insists that this is how men should be, because appearance is everything.
Depression, anxiety, even suicide because of looks.
This is part of my confusion as originally stated. Men are supposed to grow up to be perfect, etc., while women are supposed to fight against their stereotype. Given the number of men who apparently turn to artificial enhancements just so they can be like those role models, I would say it is quite telling that such things should not exist in the form that they do. Boys don't want to look good solely for the health benefits, they want to look good so they can get a girlfriend (or boyfriend) or show off to their friends. The two amount to the same thing in the end, and I for one don't believe that either should be ignored. Not one above the other, but both. Yet it is an issue that is glossed over, and will continue to be.
Anyway, this is way off topic from posting unrealistic armour.
On-topic (I'm not even sure if this is actually supposed to be a thing or if it is a parody): Codpiece... sort of... NSFW?
I'm not even sure what the point of the pauldrons are, why would attack the shoulders from the top when there is a side and chest wide open. Note that even though he is basically armour-less and has a few cuts, he is still the typical definition of 'perfectly formed.'
@Fighting_Ferret, I just took a quick look at the mods on Skyrim Nexus.
Ever look at mods for games like Skyrim?
Did you know that the highest ranking adult Skyrim mod, Caliente's Beautiful Bodies Edition -CBBE-, "A curvacious female body replacer, with adjustable proportions." was created by a woman? There are a whole host of mods that either use it or suggest using it for 'best results.'
by jdelnido I'm thankful this is only a side view! by Captainhawkins Well, it's another one of those vanishingly rare "men wearing next to nothing in a fantasy art". by ur-a-cil Because, remember kiddies, it's not *really* armor unless it includes gaps by which your opponent can kill you! by Zeronis I am deeply disturbed by the nipple cups on this outfit… I hesitate to call it "armor". by reiraseo BEWBS. Because how else are we gonna know she's a woman? by 88grzes It's that new class- the Bikini Mage! by Eliz7 This is what comes up if you search for "Female Knight" by Arsenal21 Apparently, even Death Knights can't escape the curse of BEWBS. by aditya777 Boob slot armor- how… unproductive! by overlordzeon Ah, the brokeback "Boobs and Butt" pose. And this is supposed to be a "Heavy Knight"- and no, it's not a play on words. My complaint isn't that she's "fat" or "Chubby", but that most of her butt is hanging out in the wind. by reaper78 Yeah… how about a big, loud, resounding "NO!" also by Reaper78 Boy, she must be very glad she shaves "down there"… by iidxgirl You know, if I didn't know better realistic armor for women existed, I'd be getting a complex about now...
The pictures below actually made me curse. Curses not repeated here…
by QAZIERU by Cushart also by QAZIERU by usaki1987 by hitogata by dcwj And there's one I literally CANNOT post here because the woman is naked but for shoulder, arm and leg armor. And yes, she *is* carrying a weapon. >:P
Comments
I think the odd contrast is that on the male side such things were welcomed (it became a fashion with the codpiece, presumably it was thought that a man with a larger whangdoodle required it (in reality it was padded with sawdust, straw, and other materials)). An enhancement of the male figure was interpreted as a good thing. Certain tribes still use things like gourds as, uh... protection. On the female side, it is interpreted as exactly the opposite, any image that accentuates their figure is a bad thing—an image supposedly only appealing to the opposite gender.
I find it odd, to say the least. I suppose the difference is that a lot of men want to appear muscle-bound and have big wangs so they don't mind being depicted as such in fantasy.
The rest of the armour in the following image is fine—but that codpiece, I swear they moulded the rest of the armour around his penis.
Can you imagine what would happen if a man fell over onto that codpiece? Huge codpieces being worn as a fashion and muscle plates really are only there to show that they are male.
I just don't understand why this, the above image, is "amusing" and more or less "acceptable" by most people. Thankfully, you don't see these codpieces being portrayed very often in artwork, but pec-plate(? I don't know what to call it) is quite common in fantasy.
This doesn't apply to most of the images you've posted here. Most of those just make me cringe. The reply was specific to the image you posted in the other topic.
As for the armor codpiece, I doubt the man who wore it was that big. That's a sausage or a bologna, not a, um, "Hot Dog". He'd have trouble getting that into a woman without ripping her completely open, or at least causing severe damage. And while I do know someone in a band who has a very large whangdoodle, he's not a nice guy because he *enjoys* hurting his partners, or even damaging them, with it. Yeah, way to go, band-guy. You win "nicest person of the year… IN HELL" award.
Any woman warrior who knows what she is doing should therefore be wearing at least somewhat realistic armor. If they aren't, I see an idiot who has no place being on a field of battle, because she is essentially sword fodder. So, in addition to being annoyed at seeing these unrealistically dressed women in armor, my mind makes the value judgement that women dressed to show off their bodies with coverage gaps and whatnot are idiots as well. I know that part is just me- but really, how smart is it to not take advantage of every ounce of coverage you can get when going into a battle. Sure, you can say the woman is going for distraction, but one stupid move can get you spitted and dead. I think life is paramount over the chance of being seductive.
The other image will get the usual "boobs!" from some of the men while everyone else proclaims sexism.
I just found the contrast between one form of sexism/objectification and another odd depending on which gender is affected by it. It is especially prevalent in artwork. Men are depicted as manly-men who are impeccable in every way or who are unrealistically musclebound and handsom, 'perfect male,' while women are depicted as womanly-women who are just about perfect in every way (not including dress code) with unrealistically perfect bodies (not even a tiny scrape on most of the women depicted in the images here, even though in some cases their clothes are ripped), 'perfect female.' Both focus on body, and many go directly for figure and posture when drawing so as to accentuate the form. It seems like men don't care enough to make a fuss about it when it is directed at them, though.
This is not true in all cases- but an awful lot of women are posed to titillate, not to be strong and powerful. When the character is posed that way just to be sexy, you can generally tell. A man is almost never posed like that. This is why, when people say, "Men and women are both sexualized in pictures!", they are missing the point. Yes, they are posed in a sexualized fashion-but for entirely different reasons. And until most men are posed to be mere sex objects for women or gay men to lust after, it's not the same thing at all. Men are generally posed to make people say, "I want to BE him!" and women are posed to make people think, "I want to DO her." Do you see the difference?
As for the picture, yes, this is slightly sexualized. I figured she was wearing chain under those plates (and the pants), as plate mail is really more like "plates over chain" in AD&D/D&D. The King Henry armor would be Field Plate or Full Plate.
I may have to post that Tom Preston comic again:
Imagine that most male fantasy characters looked like (and were posed like) this, even when supposed to be participating in a fight:
I think you'd find that tiring (and sexist) after a very short time.
Here is another:
And here is one posed to be sexy:
And another (this is supposed to be a marine… I think… not.):
And for others, just look at the pictures in this thread.
The boobs of these women are too big, too round, and too pert. Some of them actually look as if there are metal implants under the skin. I mean, come on, IRL, we don't see women with such boobs.
You know, why hasn't anyone come up with a new monster for the DnD world? It could be a long-lost cousin of the beholder - if the beholder is one giant floating eyeball, the boobolder would be a pair of giant floating boobs.
It would deal bludgeoning damage, smother victims to death, and spray corrosive lactic acid. When slain, it yields a crop of yogurt.
I could do up a "Monster Manual" entry for the Boobolder if anyone is interested XD
Generally, the archaic fantasy thought goes like this:
For men, it's "I want to do her."
For women, it's "I want him to do me."
How are either of those okay by any sort of standard? Generally, however, the former is bad while the latter accepted. I wasn't actually debating whether one was good or bad before now, I was merely pointing what the oddity that one was acceptable while the other was bad, while I personally consider both to be on par.
As the article I linked earlier suggests, objectification of men is apparently not worth getting huffy about and so very few people care.
Speaking of decency and standards, there is NOTHING wrong with sexuality. However there is an appropriate place for it and an appropriate audience.
The problem IS the complete lack of reality in the images,as has been stated. If I create art that shows a level of perfection in either gender that is unobtainable, what am I saying to the viewer? Well that is where Lady Rhian's and others arguments come into play... Who is the viewer and what is the artist's intent of the image to the viewer? The more common images of men are created to empower men and show their strength and virility. Are they sexist and degrading? Maybe, who is the intended audience? But I guarantee you that the picture of the extremely voluptuous female wearing the +5 celestial bikini by Victoria is intended to titillate and entice males, who make up the overwhelming majority of consumers of fantasy media. Ever look at mods for games like Skyrim? Usually the top mods are the ones that change the armor into the bikinis.
Unfortunately the men get a bit of this as well, the average male is about 5'9" tall and weighs about 180 lbs, has brown hair, and brown eyes. Average "male size" is 5". He is portrayed as a 6'6" 280 lb swelled musculed, hulking god with long flowing blonde hair, blue eyes, tanned skin and who is fearsome to his enemies, honourable to his friends, and is irresistible to women.
The average woman is 5' 4" tall, weighs about 140 lbs, has brown hair, and brown eyes. The average bra size is a 34 C, which is up from a 32 B from about a decade ago. She is portrayed a a 6' tall 120 lb, smouldering eyed, pouting lipped, come hither expression wearing, voluptuous goddess, wearing some form of painted on armor that conforms to her figure or the latest offerings from pages of the Sune's Secret catalogue. She like our male friend above is viewed as fearsome to her enemies, honourable to her friends, and is irresistible to men.
The average age of gamers is 32 and 66% are male. Woman account for approximately 11% of game designers and 3% of programmers. So woman buy games, but men make games... so it's hard to call foul when you are mainly responsible for both misrepresentations... both genders like some eye candy, but I think it's a little out of proportion and scale most of the time.
Hopefully one day reality and fantasy, sexualization and empowerment will be like resses peanut butter cups... something that blends together 2 things we like to be better than either one alone.
That women sometimes think a depicted guy is hot does not change what the image was intended to portray- someone a man would or could want to be. Nowadays, this is changing, and the change is a welcome one, but there is still plenty of the old, "Hot woman I want to do" rather than "Authentically strong woman" depicted in fantasy art.
Yes, there are even "man sexualized for the gaze of women and gay men" pictures out there. But again, that's vanishingly rare compared to the number of pictures that are "woman sexualized for the gaze of straight men" pictures. Bikini armor, armor with strategic cut-outs that show off women's bodies and body parts, up skirt and panty shots- these are all for the delectation of the male gaze. Women can want to be hot, it's true. But we also want to be seen as something more than T&A. I'd rather have a man see me being myself, and say, "Wow, you're hot!" than have a man looking down my shirt or at the size of my bust and thinking, or even saying, "Wow, that's hot!". And when you see enough pictures of women being depicted as hot for what is really their butt or bits hanging out (or barely covered), that's depressing. Women get the idea that this is the only part or parts of them that matter.
Male characters can be fat, ugly, homely or just average and still be portrayed as powerful and capable of being emulated. Where are the female characters that are the same and still get portrayed as powerful or someone we should emulate or want to be? But no. Women have to be pretty or beautiful, women have to have a near-perfect shape and, usually, wear something that if it wasn't made out of metal or leather, be more at home on a stripper or sex worker, even if they are in the middle of combat. It's a double standard.
Depression, anxiety, even suicide because of looks.
This is part of my confusion as originally stated. Men are supposed to grow up to be perfect, etc., while women are supposed to fight against their stereotype. Given the number of men who apparently turn to artificial enhancements just so they can be like those role models, I would say it is quite telling that such things should not exist in the form that they do. Boys don't want to look good solely for the health benefits, they want to look good so they can get a girlfriend (or boyfriend) or show off to their friends. The two amount to the same thing in the end, and I for one don't believe that either should be ignored. Not one above the other, but both. Yet it is an issue that is glossed over, and will continue to be.
Anyway, this is way off topic from posting unrealistic armour.
On-topic (I'm not even sure if this is actually supposed to be a thing or if it is a parody): Codpiece... sort of... NSFW?
I'm not even sure what the point of the pauldrons are, why would attack the shoulders from the top when there is a side and chest wide open. Note that even though he is basically armour-less and has a few cuts, he is still the typical definition of 'perfectly formed.'
@Fighting_Ferret, I just took a quick look at the mods on Skyrim Nexus. Did you know that the highest ranking adult Skyrim mod, Caliente's Beautiful Bodies Edition -CBBE-, "A curvacious female body replacer, with adjustable proportions." was created by a woman? There are a whole host of mods that either use it or suggest using it for 'best results.'
And there's one I literally CANNOT post here because the woman is naked but for shoulder, arm and leg armor. And yes, she *is* carrying a weapon. >:P