Because a girl has (not) to look good when...
This discussion has been closed.
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2026 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Yea, they even remove the gens and nipples...
Read and their is nothing new there, a blog post by someone with a point to prove is not a scholarly source anymore than a you tube clip. Any essay that puts Shaka's mythological female unit in as part of it's proof isn't worth my time but I read it anyway, for you. I see why they rely on scaly llamas for most of their narrative, their evidence is weak. Note I have no doubts about a womans ability to function in most capacities as a modern soldier on the front line, just the historical precident where endurance and physical strength were required does not show any meaningful femal participation.
Honestly try a few museums or scholarly texts, don't you think on all the thousands upon thousands of battlefields out there that someoen would have dug up the remains of a load of female combatants by now or at least one? Or of all the armours we have how come there are no female armours except for a very a few ceremonial armours none of which are western. Other than political leaders why are their no artistic representations of female warriors from the past? Why does folk lore have no great feamle warriors?
With female fighters and spell casters we are already in the realm of fantasy so there is no realism!
OK in a world where a fictional giant robot from outerspace can use language you don't find realistic I guess some clothing choices must irritate too.
Greetings,
Absolutely. My #1 example of this is Bayonetta's shoes. :) Again, it's about internal consistency in the story being told, which I think is the point that is often being missed. We accept dragons and spellcasters because they are consistent with sword-and-sorcery fantasy. Scantily clad barbarians of either gender? Rock on with your Frazetta selves. High heels on someone trying to nimbly fight a battle? We've lost the internal consistency of the scene, unless there's a good reason. (Example good reasons might include a business suit implying she's been transported from a modern world, or slave bracelets suggesting she didn't have choice over her footwear, etc.)
If high heeled shoes are put in without any justification (unlike a fire-breathing lizard which needs no justification, being a fundamental part of the sword-and-sorcery trope) it distracts, and should be rightfully called out.
Similarly if E.T. had said, without prompting, "Hey, dude, gimme some of those bitchin' candies!' then the internal consistency of an alien-meets-human story would have been broken, and the language would be quite reasonably called out. Transformers handles it by implying that they learned our language via mass media, which is a bit of a cop-out, but if you accept it, it's fine. We accept *the robots* because they are core to the 'Giant Robot' science fiction world we expect, but if you stray too far from the trope's internal logic, people's disbelief suspenders start snapping.
Edit: I also need to note that it's not about history; very few people viewing the fantastic images care if women were regular infantry in historical times. The female fighter or mage is a standard part of sword-and-sorcery fantasy tropes, so they are internally consistent, whereas high heels on those fighters are just not part of the standard trope, and so they catch those disbelief suspenders and snap them painfully against the viewer.
-- Morgan
Warrior maidens in high heels are a fairly fundamental part of the fantasy trope, just as much as fire breathing lizards.
Weapons that would be to heavy to wield for any lenght of time surely we've, "lost the internal consistency of the scene"
Fantasy armour such as this:
Which follows no historical precedent, would fail to add any protection and merely add extra weight. Surely we have, "lost the internal consistency of the scene".
Yet nobody appears to worry about these arguably greater problems with "realism".
Besides I can think of plenty of reasons to wear high heels in battle not least of which are heroine is that kickass she can wear heels and still fight better than anyone else. Oh and look good while doing it.
It's fantasy and the levels of, "internal consistency", you are willing to accept is purely subjective it really is nothing more than your point of view their certinaly isn't any extra criediance to one view over another.
Thats a bit of a cop out. Female warriors while not actually existing in the past are realistic in this picture because we have decided they are but her foot wear is not because we have decided they are not is not a convincing argument.
everyone knows warrior women look like this
You'll get no complaints from me on that one.
Again, why would I be irritated? I have an opinion. This language for the autobots was/is ridiculous and so were the jive talking autobots. LOL!
Also, the explanation as to why Optimus Prime and the original autobots started talking street lingo was broken when the jivebots were created, where did they learn how to speak jive? LOL!
I guess they would learn it the same place the learn't any of their English. You really don't need any fancy explinations, they are surrounded by humans and their comunications! Clearly the way the autobots talk means something to you, why bring it up otherwise?
I'm guessing that being irritated like some of the other now namelss words I've used have different meanings in American English, or the English you speak than they do in English. There is nothing intrinsically wrong about being irritated, never the less I retract my use of the word irritate and will replace it with opinion.
"OK in a world where a fictional giant robot from outerspace can use language you don't find realistic I guess some clothing choices must make you have an opinion too."
The jivebots were Sparked instantly speaking jive. When did they have the time between the instant creation to learn jive? The Spark is well explained, but it breaks down the moment stuff like this is introduced. Didn't the original autobots have to learn the language via the Internet? So what happened between that explanation and the time the jivebots were introduced into the story?
Well it's clearly important to you. I'm much less bothered myself so I guess that just shows how realism is subjective.
This isn't a conversation where people need to prove that things are or aren't right - what works for the creator, or viewer, is going to be a matter of taste and priorities. It is perfectly legitimate, if you want, to have a high-heeled rap-maiden fighting candy-coloured dragons; it is perfectly legitimate to dislike high-heeled rap-maidens and look (and ask) for content that will allow you to create images that are closer to history or mundane practicallity in their portrayals of some features of the world. Arguing over what counts as realism (or plausibility) and what is jumping the shark is not going to be productive of anything useful.
gen's are available in the pro packs. Haven't noticed missing nipples.
Is this one scholarly enough for you?
Completely agree; in effect, art knows no bounds.
The problem I see with content, which is a product people use to help them create art, is that it starts out already bound; it needs to be portrayed in the promos as both product, and art, preferably in seperate images, and this is often the case. Not always though.
Take this product as an example (http://www.daz3d.com/z-comfort-in-red); I really liked it, the poses were appropriate - yeh I know there were more dreaded tip-toes, but like I said... Appropriate. What killed it for me, was that not one of the images did the Victoria model make an indentation in the seat - not at all. Sure it looks like one of those seats that doesn't give much, but even this one* didn't... It killed believability for me, that made me hesitate; up until then I was going to buy. Now one or two of the other promoes should probably show the interraction with seat and errr ass or other appendage, but none quite so as the one attatched. The products within the scene didn't interact, even though both existed in the same image. I hope I haven't offended the PA, after all, they are doing something I can't do: certainly not with my current skill set.
When PAs create the promos, it is an aspect that I've seen neglected; a scene, and promo renders need to show off the product (not cover every image as an example with clothes), and sell the image as a whole - they are supposed to be showing what is possible; Stonemason for instance, his promos always blow me away.
Cash is finite, so I always question each purchase. I rarely buy immediately, so they sit in my cart. The above product didn't get there, although it still might as I do like it; I actually like the prop more than the poses. The prop might swing it.
Because history was written by men. Archeology has not a few examples of details and facts being ignored because it didn't suite the investigators preconceptions.
Do not confuse stamina and strength. They are different, and stamina-wise there appears to be no real difference.
Men don't like women fighting; (My opinion: I think, perhaps they feel it demeans their manhood; from my own pov, I'm sufficiently confident of myself I don't feel that.)
I often see the difference in strength cited between men and women, the problem I have with that is that while it is true there is a difference, but there is also a great difference between men. And it isn't about strength: strength is a tool to be used, it is only as good as the mind controlling it, and women can be just as ruthless as men; another aspect men feel uncomfortable with.
I don't dread tiptoes. They are easily fixed and saved out as custom poses. And I don't dread nearly naked ladies in promo images. Or in real life, but that's for another time.
Actually I do know for certain (written historical records), that in Ostfriedland there were warrior woman. The Ostfriesen are a German tribe which had chiefs and remained independent till 1744, and they had warrior maidens fighting in armour and with swords.
But ... none of them was fighting in high heels.
Besides none of them was fighting in armour which looked like punched metal bras- with a big indentation in the middle of the breast. Because a single blow on this armour wold have severely injured them, if not killed. There was a reason even male armour tendet not to have an indentation in the middle of the breast, they were either flat or curved outwards with a ridge in the middle. This indentation right in the middle presses on the breastbone, and a blow against this armour would not have been deflected to the sides but pressed hard down directly above their hearts. Bam! Warrior dead or incapable of breathing, thus no longer fighting.
Its OK for an internet source. For a start it sites it's references for a start. It manages to separate out myth from reality. It also agrees with my point, how could it not relying upon historic sources after all.
You would be able to link to these archeological finds then? The only, "find", I can think of was the relatively recent, "Viking warrior women." Of course the archeology showed nothing of the sort, one skeleton whose sex cannot be determined and a sword buried sort of near a female skeleton but equally close to a male skeleton does not make compelling evidence.
What part of, "the historical precident where endurance and physical strength were required", makes you think I have confused stamina and strength? I have quite clearly stated them as separate requirements. To be clear without sufficient training most men couldn't do whats required either and I do not doubt some women could have. The salient point is that they didn't and even if they did no examples of female armour or fighing equipment exist so any picture of females fighting with period weapons and armour are as made up as their foot wear.
Lets be clear here, because I now realise you are begingin to get the wrong opinion of me. I absolutely am a feminist, my wife earns way more than me and I'm more then comfortable with her being the main bread winner, I'm the one that does the child care in my house, on top of my job so she can concentrate on her career. I mentor female colluges in the STEM profession I work in and look forward to the day when all things are equal. I don't, "feel it demeans my manhood" and "I'm sufficiently confident of myself".
What I don't feel the need to do is hide from historical truth, the fact that women didn't contribute on the battlefields of ancient warfare is pretty much the reason they were oppressed for so long. It isn't a coincidence that womens emacipation coincided with the mechanisation of war after all.
There are lots of things, "wrong", with the depiction of male and female armour in fantasy art. Thats my point when everything is wrong why be bothered by just the heels? Or rather why be bopthered about fantasy in a fantasy picture?
I'd love to read about the Ostfriedland there were warrior women but cannot find any sources online and havent' come across them in the past. Could you perhaps link to a good source?
Hmm.. an interesting theory...I've never heard that before.
Chris_78999, for a person who accused me of being "aggravated" I see you are still here. I just wanted that link depicting soldiers in high heel stilettos marching into battle. I never did get that link.
One of the big reasons given to the Sufferagets, at least in the UK, as to why they could not have the vote was that they did not go to war. The ancient greek Poleis had ver much the same rule. Anyway the industrialisation of war changed all that.
Oh now it's high stilettos you want? As I never claimed that high stilettos were used for war I don't feel obliged to find you a picture. The sources I quoted before do still show the high heels worn by men in war.
Oh and I'm still here because I'm enjoying the discussion and never once suggested you were, "aggravated".
You are being disingenous. As I explained in the thread that was deleted, you know perfectly well what type of heels we are discussing here. The type of high heels that are depicted in many comics and 3D art, the type of heels they complain about, you tried to turn that conversation into an argument of regular heels.
No I'm not. I said high heels were worn to war by men. They were. I haven't claimed anything different. Your initial statement was specifically about high heels not stilettos, to change your argument half way through a discussion is possibly disingenuous.
You can ask all you like for me to prove something that isn't true and that I didn't claim to be true but you will get nowhere with me.
Still even stilettos in a fantasy render are not weird. Its a fantasy picture.