You like Aria T'Loak because she's played by trinity from The Matrix, and she is hawt. Aria has a decent enough role to play in the novel leading up to ME2, and in the novel after ME2.
@DDL
I actually love Adams beard. I'm generally in favor of beards on my male protagonists. Just don't get me wrong: I love it because it makes him look like a d-bag, to me
But you're right DDL.Also: This is what a woman meant to appeal to women looks like:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Av4xrD-qSB8/T ... ctures.jpg
This is what a woman meant to appeal to men looks like:
http://viloux.com/fashion_news/article/ ... r-2011.jpg
(here's a hint: It's the same woman)
Just to illustrate that everybody loves beautiful women with perfect skin, not just men. Not that I think women are especially targeted with the more bodacious character designs outthere, don't get me wrong, just saying that tits, skin, makeup? Everybody enjoy those.
The framing of the women in question obviously varies, as it does on those two magazine covers
@ Jonas
Also...I don't think you can take more bulletwounds if you're bigger. I don't...I don't know where it says that you can. Overall, I think DDL made a great argument (that was fun to read) of what I was saying: Muscles are nice, a certain level of strength, sure. I'd even argue that being a mountain of muscle will tend to make you very speedy over short distances.
But being a second faster in a sprint really is nothing compared to the value of making the right decisions and never flinching, and nowhere does it say that giant meat men are better at those things. The selection bias of the harsh environment in no way pressuposes that the meatmen would survive more often than everybody else. Strongminded, agile and clever, those seem like the traits war-survival would select for.
I will give you that chainsawing aliens is probably easier if you're able to benchpress 300 pounds than just 150. I just really doubt that's particularly relevant to survival odds compared to the will to simply have at it with the chainsaw in the first place, or the mental faculties to avoid those situations.
Now, about the analogy. I would argue that it's not an apt comparison, because I didn't pick an irrelevant aspect that doesn't work - I picked a relevant one. You're right that putting more women with smaller breasts in movies and games doesn't marginalize those with larger breasts. I'm not calling that into question, and I never did. But Arguing that you should do that, because having women with larger breasts in the games and movies objectifies women does marginalize them, because that presupposes that large breasts are inherently more sexual. That's stereotyping.
Your comparison argument didn't have that kind of stereotyping in it; the original argument does contain that kind of stereotyping. This is why I would object to the original argument, not the comparison argument. That's why I said the comparison didn't work; there was a relevant distinction.
...If the only argument is that it's unrealistic for x% of women to have x breast size...if sexual objectification doesn't tie into it, but it's merely a question of statistical authenticity...then I'd say, you got a point there. But that's not how this argument was framed, is it? It's relevant because breast size matters for other reasons than mere realism. The incorrect portrayal of breasts is used to make females prettier, to objectify them, which is a real problem. In fact, if breast size didn't matter, there wouldn't be a problem in the first place, because then the authors wouldn't have bothered making the breasts unrealistically big (which they're not, as we've established by some consensus, but the argument I made assumed that they actually were, so need to keep going down that road).
The underlying problem isn't that there are too many large breasts, but rather, that large breasts are attributed with sexual significance over other breasts. Asking for smaller breasts is treating the symptoms, not the cause; the cause being that breast size matters, so by treating the symptoms, or asking for the symptoms to be treated, you actually contribute to the cause.
Now, third time and counting, I may be on the wrong side of this, because treating the symptoms may be more important than treating the cause in this matter. Now that brings me to this question
Yes I do.Do you genuinely hold the opinion that women with large breasts are an oppressed minority compared to more averagely endowed women?
http://www.thefrisky.com/2010-10-19/its ... sts-again/
This woman took one photograph of herself that showed som top-boob, and a year later her political opponents are using it against her. This is a direct concequence of how society views breasts, and it's more than a little unfair.
And no, I'm not perscribing large breasts in games and movies as a solution. I'm prescribing "let us ignore breast size" as a solution. I'm saying let's treat all size breasts the same, nomatter where or how they appear.
