Thread Closed
(11-21-2014, 04:25 PM)LiadansWhisper Wrote: Or maybe SE decided to not show nipples in their game due to rating concerns.The echidna thing was supposed to be a joke (no sarcasm intended here, I honestly do struggle with making jokes/humor). And I'd just like to point out that I have at least once in the course of the discussion agreed that the characters probably are mammal, since SE really hasn't given us anything to think otherwise (however, I do have to acknowledge that until SE sets it in stone, it is something we're taking for granted. I hope they don't set it otherwise, because from an RP standpoint that'll create a nightmare... but if they do, I'm voting for babies being found under cabbage leaves).Â
I mean, just tossing that out there. Â If you're full-on sure that races in Eorzea aren't mammals, I mean, nothing anyone here could say is gonna convince you otherwise.
My arguments have mostly been against the statement of "if the characters weren't mammals they shouldn't have breasts because breasts exist solely for the production of milk to feed babies". This is true in real-world (as we know it) biology, yes. HOWEVER, real-world cultures world-wide have often used the depictions of female breasts on various forms, not to turn these forms into mammals but to show femininity. The psychological response in the vast majority of our species is not "breasts = mammal", but "breasts (regardless of size) = feminine". Artists/writers/developers/etc tend to use this response because it is readily identifiable and accepted without question by the majority. And the game is, in a broad sense, an artistic endevour.
(The live births thing just struck me on a "well, actually..." moment. Navels are often just an artistic thing, I've seen them on things that in legend/folklore hatched from eggs or born from the foam of the sea.)
Now. It is ENTIRELY possible to make an attractive female character/whatever that is flat-chested/lacking breasts, it just requires the use of other methods/devices/tropes to convey a feminine aspect. However, this can detract from certain character types. A flat chested, delicate, doe-eyed, and full-lipped girl would be harder to pass off to the majority as a tomboy versus a strong-featured, rough-and-tumble, one-eyelash-short-of-masculine girl that has a hint (like, A-cup) of a chest.
As to the pictures Zyrusticae linked, I have not played GW2 (I'm assuming that's GW2?) personally but I did watch over my husband's shoulder often when he played. He was a die-hard Asura fan, and I agree that Asuran females were, through use of other methods/devices/tropes, perfectly feminine and artistically attractive without breasts. Breasts would've actually looked absurd on them, much like they would on Lalafell. He only played Charr long enough to decide that he did not like how the males moved, so with me being lazy after a long day, I only have the linked picture to go on for the females. I find the female in the image to also be artistically attractive and feminine. However, my understanding of the Charr is that they are a warrior race, and the image is quite far from what I personally would want to make for such a race with such a background; I'd want something... meaner. Sharper features, leaner face, perhaps more ragged; something I would seriously hesitate to approach versus something I'd ask after a few moments if I could pet it's ears to see how soft they are. To this end, I would think that small breasts (or even one breast; the other being removed as both an offering to a patron deity and because it would get in the way of fighting like the Amazons of legend were said to do) would not be inappropriate, because what I'm picturing in my head is likely fairly gender ambiguous to others.
(Edit was for spelling)