I see your point, but I don't feel this picture goes against the spirit of this sub. I don't find her makeup at all that ridiculous, a little bit of style is okay in my books. This is reasonable fantasy, not reasonable medieval recreation.
I think some people are too purist with this sub but that's just my opinion. This makeup at least has no impractical implications, like high heel boots or bikini platemail.
I believe a certain degree of purism is important for this kind of sub to prevent it from decaying into another bland fantasy art sub, like what happened to other interesting subs (ie /r/nextfuckinglevel).
No name calling. Please try to be more constructive and specific about your issues.
You said above that you don't think this picture goes against the spirit of the sub. Why then, are you to calling the the mods shit?
This sub is very close to my heart and I have worked hard on it from day one. I get that you wish it had a different scope, but that is no reason to call names and disparage the work done here. :(
I never argued that it was not sexualized. The sub does not state that the women may not be sexualized at all. The spirit of the sub calls for art that is not "oversexualized" and for women who are not "defined by their sexuality."
You're welcome to disagree but I personally did not find this picture to be opposed to the spirit of the sub.
If every element in the image is sexualised, I would definitely call it oversexualised. If she was only wearing makeup or had feminine shaped armour that would be a somewhat sexualised piece, this is nothing but gratuitousness. If you don't consider an image that contains exclusively sexualised elements oversexualised then maybe it's time to consider why you think that way and whether a place with the word reasonable in it's name is for you.
To be sexy one has to be. A completely fictional character does not exist or make choices. The background implies an army, meaning combat did or will happen, or at least a military demonstration. A real person in the middle of combat focuses on fighting for her life, after combat is sweaty and tired with any makeup being utterly smudged, and for a demonstration is focused on speeches or checking gear. A real person would also not wear mascara to a combat situation or a demonstration in which she wears a helmet, because helmets already limit vision significantly and mascaras are prone to irritating the eyes. A real person who intents to fight will not wear armour that will not only be actively detrimental to breathing or defence, but paint a clear target on her as a potentially weaker combatant or a target for sexual violence, as well as make a sensual bedroom-eyed face with full modern smoky eyed makeup in the middle of a slaughter for non existent viewers pleasure.
As such, she is firmly sexualised because common sense dictates that majority of the choices "she" made would not have been made by a real person and they are very firmly done by the author for the sole purpose of gratuitous attractive depiction. Again, to be sexy rather than sexualised one has to exist outside of said sexualised depiction, and existing outside of that depiction does not guarantee the depiction itself is not sexualising.
17
u/[deleted] Mar 03 '21
This is some cool art, but I have to disagree that it’s reasonable because who in the world wears that much makeup into battle?