If beauty is subjective, who defines the beauty of your character?

[Martiallais]

Short answer: Everyone else? In the case of Mar at least.

 

Long answer: I never set out to make an overly handsome/beautiful/whatever-word-you-wish sort of character, it's been the interactions with other people both IC and OOC that actually nudged me to consider making it (a certain level of attractiveness according to the standards of the world/game/etc) a part of the character.

 

I honestly couldn't tell you what apparent magical combination jackpot I chose but the number of random complimentary 'wow your character is really _____!' whispers has become a running thing. Even on the (still wip) wiki entry, I don't touch on it myself. The brief mention I have ready to add to his Fate-14 page (as a stunt mind you) states that he'd only get a brief bonus to interactions during a scene if the person interacting with him finds him attractive because I wouldn't want to try and force anything on anyone else.

 

Personally? Cliche as it sounds, I always figure if someone finds him attractive it's because he has a warm, welcoming personality and all.

[Desitjant]

Isn't beauty subjective?

 

 

...In essence, is the beauty of the character truly judged by the player themselves or the audience? If someone makes a character everyone considers ugly, except themselves, should they really lazily describe themselves as "beautiful"? Should they get upset when other characters don't act with praise towards their appearance?

 

 

 

 

 

There are actually multiple schools of thought pertaining to this topic.

 

"Classical" beauty is actually objective; it is defined by mathematical proportions that were established in Greco-Roman art and revived multiple times by Western European cultures. There are specific ratios for the face as well as the body as a whole (which one could break down further). I won't get list the details here, unless someone asks for it, but good example of a person with a classically beautiful face is Scarlett Johansson; her face has a high degree of symmetry, and the ratios between:

 

hairline/forehead/brow/eye/nose/mouth/chin (vertical)

eye/nose/eye (horizontal)

 

are all quite close to the "ideal".

 

This is not to say that value only derives from numbers; rather, in this context, "beauty" is an objective concept, whereas "attractiveness" encompasses the subjective part. We might find the color of someone's eyes to be particularly alluring or compelling - that attribute just isn't a component of the classical formula.

 

*It should also be noted that "classical" beauty also applies to architecture and artistic composition (the term "the golden ratio" originated within architectural theory.

 

 

As far as RP goes, I consider a description of a character as "beautiful" to be more along the lines of "unhelpful" than anything else. If someone asked you to use the CC to create a "beautiful" Elezen alongside a "normal" Elezen, what differences would you make? Aside from shying away from some of the more obviously strange faces, I doubt most of us have any idea.

 

In Eorzea, we are provided with little to no information as to what the different races and cultures perceive as (physically) beautiful. Aside from that sorta creepy "bodice assessor" Hyur in Limsa Lominsa. For all we know, Every Miqo'te without the fluffy tail may be considered super homely

[Dis]

I tend to describe physical features for my character, without actually bothering to describe the beauty of a character.  A couple of my characters are described as average, and I never really bother to say 'beautiful'.  I will use terms like statuesque, and describing certain aspects of their frame, etc, as supple, or toned, etc.  Things that are meant to describe shape more than 'Oh look, this is pretty.'

 

I'm very much of the belief that beauty is a matter of perception, and so I don't bother to detail that my characters are or are not physically attractive.  Because everyone will read my descriptions in RP, and make up their own opinions of whether or not their character will find mine beautiful. 

 

That's basically what it boils down to.  What's beautiful to one person is only passable to another person, and no two people will find the same exact physical traits beautiful in someone.  So, if someone says their character is beautiful, it won't matter unless whatever character you're playing agrees with that viewpoint.

[Leanne]

Like others have stated, I never in RP state Leanne as beautiful. I consider her particularly pretty, but others might not agree. It does not stop me from throwing out visible gestures that may hint at her being pretty. Her sweet smile, graceful posture, or her golden, almost glowing eyes to mention a few.

 

One characteristic that I never mentioned (or thought of!) but friends began to RP while expressing their vision of Leanne is the "unique" hip sway she has while walking. Things like that are fun to add to your character, in my opinion, leaving them more colorful!

[ImmoralAria]

This is something I've actually struggled with a great deal with my character. I play an older Miqo'te woman, whom was a mercenary for most of her life. Her body is supposed to be gnarled and full of old scars. But I simply don't have the ability to show this to people, as I would picture her swimsuit laden body to be quite a ghastly sight, but instead people see her in-game model which is the standard slim miqo'te body. It's actually quite frustrating to me, because if I want to point it out I have to type up quite the description, and it's really cumbersome in large settings.

[LadyRochester]

This thread exists because RPers are spiteful, contrarian little shits who don't like being told what to do - but only if they're told to view a character positively.

 

There is no quibbling over "ugly." There is no quibbling over other vague descriptors that imply other informed traits like "sickly" or "plain." It is only when a player dares suggest a character is viewed in a positive fashion that players get their hackles up and start fleeing to the warm, inviting confines of subjectivity.

 

This is the wit thread, redux.

 

Except that it's not. Mental faculties are far less open to subjectivity than beauty. However, I am not going to argue about intelligence again, this is not the thread for it.

 

And yes, I do mean "ugly" characters as well. I saw a roleplayer once say their character was "ugly"without giving much context as to why, in fact, in game, they looked better looking than average. When I sent them a /tell asking why they considered their character "ugly", they basically responded "he has tiny eyes and a biggish nose."

 

Features that to me, and to people in general, are not enough to make a character "ugly". I am not treating a character as if they were unattractive when they are hardly described as such, and all you get is an "He's ugly" description.

 

Claiming subjectivity regarding positive traits is the only one that is truly problematic is frankly idiotic. Not every roleplayer that points this out is a bitter little shit.

 

Same thing goes for "good" and "evil" characters. I had roleplayers tell me their characters are incredibly evil when their actions are considered mildly questionable at best. Then get annoyed if my character doesn't act terrorized/intimidated by them. Is "evil" a positive trait now?

 

I speak of lazy description when people force their views upon others without truly baking up their claims. When they expect special treatment because their characters are "ugly" or "beautiful" without backing it up. If something is subjective, regardless of it being positive or negative, a roelplayer should not expect others to bend backwards to cater to their beliefs. It's stupidly inconsiderate and lazy.

 

That's like me saying "Sasha Rochester is the ugliest, bitchiest, stupidest person in Eorzea! She also smells!" I can say it all I want, but if I gent angry when other roleplyers don't agree, I'm probably a bloody idiot. After all, roleplay is more about "show, don't tell." and being so vague with description makes your roleplay seem flat and boring.

[Berrod Armstrong]

This thread exists because RPers are spiteful, contrarian little shits who don't like being told what to do - but only if they're told to view a character positively.

 

There is no quibbling over "ugly." There is no quibbling over other vague descriptors that imply other informed traits like "sickly" or "plain." It is only when a player dares suggest a character is viewed in a positive fashion that players get their hackles up and start fleeing to the warm, inviting confines of subjectivity.

 

This is the wit thread, redux.

 

Except that it's not. Mental faculties are far less open to subjectivity than beauty. However, I am not going to argue about intelligence again, this is not the thread for it.

 

And yes, I do mean "ugly" characters as well. I saw a roleplayer once say their character was "ugly"without giving much context as to why, in fact, in game, they looked better looking than average. When I sent them a /tell asking why they considered their character "ugly", they basically responded "he has tiny eyes and a biggish nose."

 

Features that to me, and to people in general, are not enough to make a character "ugly". I am not treating a character as if they were unattractive when they are hardly described as such, and all you get is an "He's ugly" description.

 

Claiming subjectivity regarding positive traits is the only one that is truly problematic is frankly idiotic. Not every roleplayer that points this out is a bitter little shit.

 

Same thing goes for "good" and "evil" characters. I had roleplayers tell me their characters are incredibly evil when their actions are considered mildly questionable at best. Then get annoyed if my character doesn't act terrorized/intimidated by them. Is "evil" a positive trait now?

 

I speak of lazy description when people force their views upon others without truly baking up their claims. When they expect special treatment because their characters are "ugly" or "beautiful" without backing it up. If something is subjective, regardless of it being positive or negative, a roelplayer should not expect others to bend backwards to cater to their beliefs. It's stupidly inconsiderate and lazy.

 

That's like me saying "Sasha Rochester is the ugliest, bitchiest, stupidest person in Eorzea! She also smells!" I can say it all I want, but if I gent angry when other roleplyers don't agree, I'm probably a bloody idiot. After all, roleplay is more about "show, don't tell." and being so vague with description makes your roleplay seem flat and boring.

 

I won't go into much input on -- well, the meat of what is being argued between the two posts above, but I feel the need to make a sincere plea for more...constructive language when it comes to discussing roleplay. This isn't just targeted at the posters I've quoted in particular, but it's a general outreach. I'm quoting this particular thread of posts because it was the one that actually made me lean back in my seat and say -whoa-.

 

I read what was said above and I see merit in it on both sides of the argument. However, I can't help but feel a little odd about the way things are put across. There are...a lot of new roleplayers who read these threads. A lot of shy roleplayers. A lot of roleplayers who want to learn, but struggle with issues of self confidence, or simply some who need a little bit of positive encouragement -- or to read a simple discussion on things. 

 

Calling something 'stupidly inconsiderate and lazy', 'idiotic', or flat out saying someone's roleplay is 'flat and boring' can very well turn off a novice roleplayer (or shy roleplayer, or a struggling roleplayer) from going forward and learning. I understand that people may hold this view and I respect that they are entitled to their opinions. It is though, a shared space among many and in the end we just want to be excellent to each other and promote a healthy environment where everyone can grow. 

 

So much of what is discussed here is extremely helpful, but it all goes down the drain if it's put across poorly. Please, I beg of you, all of you, let us consider how our points are presented, and have consideration for those who may be reading them to learn from them. 

 

My apologies if this post is not in tune with the thread's discussion, but I really think that it needed to be said. Thank you.

[Alothia]

Modhat: So hey, all. What Berrod said may not fit within the context of the thread, but I think that it bears hearing.

 

 

Do be considerate of people who come here to read these threads, and do your best to make this place on that is constructive instead of destructive. I'll leave it all as is for now, but please consider this as a warning to all involved in this discussion.

 

 

Thanks!

[LadyRochester]

 

I won't go into much input on -- well, the meat of what is being argued between the two posts above, but I feel the need to make a sincere plea for more...constructive language when it comes to discussing roleplay. This isn't just targeted at the posters I've quoted in particular, but it's a general outreach. I'm quoting this particular thread of posts because it was the one that actually made me lean back in my seat and say -whoa-.

 

I read what was said above and I see merit in it on both sides of the argument. However, I can't help but feel a little odd about the way things are put across. There are...a lot of new roleplayers who read these threads. A lot of shy roleplayers. A lot of roleplayers who want to learn, but struggle with issues of self confidence, or simply some who need a little bit of positive encouragement -- or to read a simple discussion on things. 

 

Calling something 'stupidly inconsiderate and lazy', 'idiotic', or flat out saying someone's roleplay is 'flat and boring' can very well turn off a novice roleplayer (or shy roleplayer, or a struggling roleplayer) from going forward and learning. I understand that people may hold this view and I respect that they are entitled to their opinions. It is though, a shared space among many and in the end we just want to be excellent to each other and promote a healthy environment where everyone can grow. 

 

So much of what is discussed here is extremely helpful, but it all goes down the drain if it's put across poorly. Please, I beg of you, all of you, let us consider how our points are presented, and have consideration for those who may be reading them to learn from them. 

 

My apologies if this post is not in tune with the thread's discussion, but I really think that it needed to be said. Thank you.

 

I'm a fairly new roleplayer myself, and I am far from perfect. However, my point stands, whether it is used with raw language or more "pretty" words. Expecting others to cater to you IS inconsiderate and lazy. This is not only how roleplay works, but also how life works. If you're hardly putting forth any effort, you shouldn't expect others to fall to their knees for you. 

 

The reality is, if there is nos substance to your character, there will be no substance to your roleplay. I can't put it in nicer terms than this. When I first started in RP, I made a lot of Rookie mistakes I wish people had poined out to me instead of having to sit down and have to figure it out myself, to this day, I cringe at some of the posts I made.

 

Mind you, I started RPing little over a year ago. Granted, some people are not as open to criticism, and I do apologize for the language I used, my intention was not to harm or discourage other roleplayers from experimenting with styles. Ultimately, it's their choice as to how they roleplay.

[Hammersmith]

Society has a broad idea of what it wants "Pretty" to be but here in the world of RP we get to saddle it all on our little pretendy-man and force them to dance to the tune.

 

Hammer lacks beauty.  Which means having a concept of it to defy and work against.  It's a combination, for me, of personal respect for the self (EX appearance and basic self care can suffer easily for your average schlub) and personal respect for others you're going to run into (EX 2: But can clean up to a solid 6 if they try).

 

Appearance plays a roll, both in how things are carried, everything from shoulders to brow to legs to stance.  Beauty is a full form involvement that requires brain and body demonstrating a control of appearance.  Beauty can be horrific. Beauty can be intimidating.  It can be haunting, or strange, or alien.  In the end it's what keeps us staring in fascination instead of revulsion at something.  Which means it's reliant on the brain behind it and why it's trying, or even incidentally framed "beautiful" by it's actions and currently worn skin-mask.

 

 

So?  How do you do ugly?  You grind a lack of personal pride and attention to others into an entirety.  No one hits on Hammersmith, in spite of the "Chicks dig scars" and "Roes get swarmed in the quicksand" stereotypes.  Where other large scarred muscled Roes get tells asking them to break them in half, I don't get anything.

 

Why?  I like to think everything Hammersmith DOES is ugly.  From his mad red eye to the smothering cloud of ash and smoke that he spits out, constantly.  He's in this for him.  He doesnt' dress up.  He's not looking or attentive to others unless it benefits him in some way, however short or long term.  His scars aren't held well.  His personality could crack glass with a good cuss.  His body posture is closed and unwelcoming.

 

He's an asshole and that does NOT scream beauty or attractive.

 

It screams: "I hope I'm not next to him when a fight starts"

[Unnamed Mercenary]

This thread exists because RPers are spiteful, contrarian little shits who don't like being told what to do - but only if they're told to view a character positively.

 

There is no quibbling over "ugly." There is no quibbling over other vague descriptors that imply other informed traits like "sickly" or "plain." It is only when a player dares suggest a character is viewed in a positive fashion that players get their hackles up and start fleeing to the warm, inviting confines of subjectivity.

 

This is the wit thread, redux.

 

Except that it's not. Mental faculties are far less open to subjectivity than beauty. However, I am not going to argue about intelligence again, this is not the thread for it.

 

And yes, I do mean "ugly" characters as well. I saw a roleplayer once say their character was "ugly"without giving much context as to why, in fact, in game, they looked better looking than average. When I sent them a /tell asking why they considered their character "ugly", they basically responded "he has tiny eyes and a biggish nose."

 

Features that to me, and to people in general, are not enough to make a character "ugly". I am not treating a character as if they were unattractive when they are hardly described as such, and all you get is an "He's ugly" description.

 

Claiming subjectivity regarding positive traits is the only one that is truly problematic is frankly idiotic. Not every roleplayer that points this out is a bitter little shit.

 

Same thing goes for "good" and "evil" characters. I had roleplayers tell me their characters are incredibly evil when their actions are considered mildly questionable at best. Then get annoyed if my character doesn't act terrorized/intimidated by them. Is "evil" a positive trait now?

 

I speak of lazy description when people force their views upon others without truly baking up their claims. When they expect special treatment because their characters are "ugly" or "beautiful" without backing it up. If something is subjective, regardless of it being positive or negative, a roelplayer should not expect others to bend backwards to cater to their beliefs. It's stupidly inconsiderate and lazy.

 

That's like me saying "Sasha Rochester is the ugliest, bitchiest, stupidest person in Eorzea! She also smells!" I can say it all I want, but if I gent angry when other roleplyers don't agree, I'm probably a bloody idiot. After all, roleplay is more about "show, don't tell." and being so vague with description makes your roleplay seem flat and boring.

 

I'm a fairly new roleplayer myself, and I am far from perfect. However, my point stands, whether it is used with raw language or more "pretty" words. Expecting others to cater to you IS inconsiderate and lazy. This is not only how roleplay works, but also how life works. If you're hardly putting forth any effort, you shouldn't expect others to fall to their knees for you. 

 

The reality is, if there is nos substance to your character, there will be no substance to your roleplay. I can't put it in nicer terms than this. When I first started in RP, I made a lot of Rookie mistakes I wish people had poined out to me instead of having to sit down and have to figure it out myself, to this day, I cringe at some of the posts I made.

 

Mind you, I started RPing little over a year ago. Granted, some people are not as open to criticism, and I do apologize for the language I used, my intention was not to harm or discourage other roleplayers from experimenting with styles. Ultimately, it's their choice as to how they roleplay.

 

 

 

Here's my view on this. This thread is basically asking the exact same thing as the wit thread. It ultimately comes down to "can a person RP something, whether a trait or skill, without actually validating it through RP?" And as many of the people in the last thread said and how many of the people in this thread have said, it depends.

 

It depends on the person RPing. It depends on the people they are RPing with. It depends on how all of those people view RP and judge what they feel is "good" RP. The only wrong way is to not try or to have no imagination. A story and only go so far if the characters are lacking, and a character can only go so far if their story is lacking. The larger a list of do's and don'ts becomes, the more intimidating and difficult it is to follow. Ultimately, it just ends up with people trying so hard to fit into the "community guidelines" that they stop writing characters for themselves. And then it becomes unfun.

 

How does one RP that their character is smart, beautiful, able to drive a car, ride a Chocobo, fight, use magic, or do whatever else they want to do? They try to write it to the best of their ability. For some people, that might actually be writing something like "my character is pretty," or "my character is ugly," or "my character is really smart, but ugly". If they think that's sufficient to describe the character, and the people they RP with are content with it, there really isn't much of a problem. If that same person later goes "how can I better show these aspects of my character," then it's a perfect time to sit down and think about the character's intelligence and how it's show, about what the character looks like and how that can be written and developed upon. The game only allows a characters to look a certain way.

[Verad]

 

That's like me saying "Sasha Rochester is the ugliest, bitchiest, stupidest person in Eorzea! She also smells!" I can say it all I want, but if I gent angry when other roleplyers don't agree, I'm probably a bloody idiot. After all, roleplay is more about "show, don't tell." and being so vague with description makes your roleplay seem flat and boring.

 

The thing is, you do that. Your RPC description makes it clear that players are meant to find Sasha Rochester both intelligent and physically attractive. Phrases like "blessed with a chest size and hips she adores to flaunt" make it clear that you believe your character to be, to put it academically, stacked like a brickhouse and attractive for it, and if people started reacting to your description as if she were flat as a board both ways and making a fool of herself for acting otherwise, I think you would be rather cross about it. Unless "blessed" is meant to suggest flatness is the attractive trait in Eorzea? The description is quite vague that way.

 

Likewise, acting as if there are wildly different definitions of attractiveness within the general body of roleplayers, such that one can't use vague descriptors like "beautiful" and not give people a pretty clear idea of what is going on with your character's looks, feels willfully obtuse rather than spiteful, as if you are ignoring that while there can be very broad ranges of difference in how people view certain appearances, there is still generally some common ground because of culturally received definitions of beauty. It's not as if players have such wildly divergent definitions of beauty that no one person can really understand what the other's is, with one player demanding nipples all over the face and the other demanding hair of cheese in order for looks to matter. But you're right - sometimes it's not spiteful, sometimes it's just dense.

 

Anyway, speaking of "show don't tell," you will find if you look through your description that about half of it contains adjectives that rely on culturally received definitions of what your character might look like - "elegant," "feminine," "provocatively," so forth. It's all pretty telly, and I'd like to see a more objective description provided before you go making aspersions about vague characterization. Speck in the eye and plank in one's own and such.

[Gargand]

I like to set a believable baseline for my characters.

 

Anything extra I prefer to be added by those the character roleplays with, it feels more organic and rewarding that way.

[LadyRochester]

 

That's like me saying "Sasha Rochester is the ugliest, bitchiest, stupidest person in Eorzea! She also smells!" I can say it all I want, but if I gent angry when other roleplyers don't agree, I'm probably a bloody idiot. After all, roleplay is more about "show, don't tell." and being so vague with description makes your roleplay seem flat and boring.

 

The thing is, you do that. Your RPC description makes it clear that players are meant to find Sasha Rochester both intelligent and physically attractive. Phrases like "blessed with a chest size and hips she adores to flaunt" make it clear that you believe your character to be, to put it academically, stacked like a brickhouse and attractive for it, and if people started reacting to your description as if she were flat as a board both ways and making a fool of herself for acting otherwise, I think you would be rather cross about it. Unless "blessed" is meant to suggest flatness is the attractive trait in Eorzea? The description is quite vague that way.

 

Likewise, acting as if there are wildly different definitions of attractiveness within the general body of roleplayers, such that one can't use vague descriptors like "beautiful" and not give people a pretty clear idea of what is going on with your character's looks, feels willfully obtuse rather than spiteful, as if you are ignoring that while there can be very broad ranges of difference in how people view certain appearances, there is still generally some common ground because of culturally received definitions of beauty. It's not as if players have such wildly divergent definitions of beauty that no one person can really understand what the other's is, with one player demanding nipples all over the face and the other demanding hair of cheese in order for looks to matter. But you're right - sometimes it's not spiteful, sometimes it's just dense.

 

Anyway, speaking of "show don't tell," you will find if you look through your description that about half of it contains adjectives that rely on culturally received definitions of what your character might look like - "elegant," "feminine," "provocatively," so forth. It's all pretty telly, and I'd like to see a more objective description provided before you go making aspersions about vague characterization. Speck in the eye and plank in one's own and such.

 

 

I have not edited her physical description in months, all I have worked on are relationships, but now that you point it out, I can perfectly change it. By "elegant" I mean generally expensive, richly colored, well-fitted and almost aristocratic clothing. It's not difficult for people to comprehend that. Now, by "Femenine" I mean classically femenine traits, in Eorzea there has never been any implication that they differed culturally as to what they considered feminine to what we do in this world ("Girly" clothing such as skirts, dresses, sparkling accessories and the like). "Provocative" implies clothing that is somewhat revealing, something that does not really vary unless the concept of "provocative" to some is showing ankles.

 

You can claim femininity, provocativeness, and elegance are subjective, but they really are not when it comes to building an idea based on Japanese/Western norms, which truthfully don't vary much. "Beautiful" or "Ugly" deal with a wider spectrum. You can't deny that.

 

People might find "Elegance", "femininity", and "Provocative" clothing unattractive, as they signify more specific traits than simply "Beautiful". I had people roleplay as if my character looked like a horse, and while I might disagree OOC, I'm not going to cry about it, and I am not going to force their character to find mine beautiful because I disagree. It's their choice, their taste, it's up to them.

 

I can mention that she's "generously endowed", but that implies she has gigantic breasts, which she does not, and mentioning her cup size and her exact measurements seems like something someone would do to attract the wrong kind of roleplayers.

[Ignacius]

Again, the best thing to do here is to try to make your appearance reflect your character.  If your character is "unkempt" it tends to mean he sleeps outside or is unconcerned with personal hygiene.  But the most fun you can have is if you say your character has, "Eyes that seem to piece, unblinking."  People KNOW what that is, and whether they find it attractive or ugly isn't even the point anymore.  They know something is strange and not particularly earthly about your character, and it'll say more than even "beautiful" will.

[Gabineaux]

Nevermind, not worth it. But lol just the same. Mod delete this pls.

[Edda]

I can mention that she's "generously endowed", but that implies she has gigantic breasts, which she does not, and mentioning her cup size and her exact measurements seems like something someone would do to attract the wrong kind of roleplayers.

 

...Shit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

^{There is nothing wrong with this. I'll have you know measurements are highly important when it comes to making tailored-to-fit clothing and is probably one of the most objective body descriptions in this world! Just saying.}

[Caspar]

I can mention that she's "generously endowed", but that implies she has gigantic breasts, which she does not, and mentioning her cup size and her exact measurements seems like something someone would do to attract the wrong kind of roleplayers.

 

...Shit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

^{There is nothing wrong with this. I'll have you know measurements are highly important when it comes to making tailored-to-fit clothing and is probably one of the most objective body descriptions in this world! Just saying.}

That post did remind me of your eloquent prototype wiki.

 

Hm, but I think concrete descriptors are more useful to me, often, than a generalized impression. But that just determines how much I need to infer about the character's looks.

I can draw some stereotypical impressions judging from the feel of the rp and descriptive language used. While they conform to convention, it's still usable shorthand for what is beautiful, by invoking modern stereotypical portrayals of attractiveness.

[Verad]

I have not edited her physical description in months, all I have worked on are relationships, but now that you point it out, I can perfectly change it. By "elegant" I mean generally expensive, richly colored, well-fitted and almost aristocratic clothing. It's not difficult for people to comprehend that. Now, by "Femenine" I mean classically femenine traits, in Eorzea there has never been any implication that they differed culturally as to what they considered feminine to what we do in this world ("Girly" clothing such as skirts, dresses, sparkling accessories and the like). "Provocative" implies clothing that is somewhat revealing, something that does not really vary unless the concept of "provocative" to some is showing ankles.

 

You can claim femininity, provocativeness, and elegance are subjective, but they really are not when it comes to building an idea based on Japanese/Western norms, which truthfully don't vary much. "Beautiful" or "Ugly" deal with a wider spectrum. You can't deny that.

 

People might find "Elegance", "femininity", and "Provocative" clothing unattractive, as they signify more specific traits than simply "Beautiful". I had people roleplay as if my character looked like a horse, and while I might disagree OOC, I'm not going to cry about it, and I am not going to force their character to find mine beautiful because I disagree. It's their choice, their taste, it's up to them.

 

I can mention that she's "generously endowed", but that implies she has gigantic breasts, which she does not, and mentioning her cup size and her exact measurements seems like something someone would do to attract the wrong kind of roleplayers.

 

I need you to explain what you mean by the following phrases:

 

"Richly colored" Which colors are determined to be rich, and how do you identify them as such? Supposing I have a different definition of richness in coloration, or view richness in color as a mark of lacking elegance, and instead see it as a mark of gaudiness.

 

"Expensive" - how do I know that the clothing is expensive? If I see this clothing, how do you know I am qualified to identify whether the clothing is expensive or if it just looks expensive and is actually a cheap fake? This feels very presumptuous of you, as if you are enforcing a judgment value on my character.

 

"Well-fitted" - Can you explain further what you mean by well, and "fitted?" What are the cultural connections between fittedness and one's attire, and how does that necessarily mean elegance when clothing that may not be well-fitted may also be referred to as elegant?

 

"Almost aristocratic" - Again, how am I supposed to know it's almost aristocratic? That's a rather fine-grained distinction to make, and you're again presuming quite a bit about my character's ability to make that judgment. And for that matter, which aristocracy?

 

As for what we do and do not consider feminine, I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by "classical" femininity, because that would presume there's some reasonable baseline for femininity, and just saying something is "feminine" is, again, presumptuous.

 

If you found all of the above needlessly pedantic and argumentative for the sake of it, that's how I feel every time I see a thread on an RP forum kvetching about "How dare they say their character is just 'beautiful' or 'ugly'! They can't control my reactions like that!" Spiteful, useless contrarianism, the lot of it.

 

So yes, I can deny that there is such broad variations in beauty that "beauty" is insufficient as a trait, I will deny it, and I continue to deny it, because you are using exactly the same logic I am using to say that these other vague descriptors are somehow not really vague descriptors because everyone already knows what you mean. The fact that you don't apply this to another vague descriptor like "beautiful" is not a sign of correctness; merely inconsistency.

 

So, again, this is the wit thread redux. It is the same thread in topic, it is the same thread in OP, and it is the same thread in purpose.

[Melkire]

[Admin Hardhat]

 

Thread has been locked upon original poster's request; moderator team discussed this at some length and came to a consensus. While it seems that the discussion has run its course, if anyone wishes to continue they are free to open up a new thread in the same vein.

 

Thank You.

 

[/Admin Hardhat]