But that's not a big deal. You admitted it yourself, earlier. Reasonable people don't object if you have the option to play a sexy character. It's when every female has to be sexy that there's a problem.LifeCharacter said:Yes, go find me a few examples of female characters dressed as something other than something crossed with a stripper; that'll prove that there isn't a problem where female characters are disproportionately designed (Because a character can't "choose" to underdress, a designer chooses to put them in retarded outfits) as fanservice first, powerful second.Pyrian said:See, here's the thing. The central point of your argument is in the words "EVERY" and "HAS TO". Without those, you don't really have an argument. There's really no big deal if "SOME" or "MOST" will "CHOOSE" to underdress. So, the existence of examples does not prove your point, but the existence of counter-examples DOES disprove your point.
But you don't really care about that, do you? You want all the sexy options gone altogether. That's the truth of where you're coming from. You start with the reasonable objection to every woman being hypersexualized, but when that turns out to be inaccurate, you have to fall back, and admit what you really want.