Will Final Fantasy XV's Cid be a Lady?

[Sephiroth]

Other troutty examples are supposed to make this troutty example less troutty? There are practical reasons for not wearing armor, and, despite my complaints, it is okay for outfits to not make sense in a fantasy world. Those things make the choice to dress Cidney in such a ridiculous outfit tolerable perhaps, but not any less stupid.

It does not make it "less trouty" because that, so what you actually think of all these examples, is completely up to you. And you really think people risking their lives have more right not to wear armor out of convenience than a person who only risks getting a bit of oil on her body?

Why can't I just think her outfit is stupid and sexist without people coming at me with "but other outfits are stupid too!" like that's going to change my mind? What kind of logic is that?

It is the logic of fairness. You are okay with other things you think of as equally stupid and justify them but have a serious problem with this example of Cidney which is seriously not worse than people risking their lives wearing no actual protection and you still justify as practical. I am not actually targeting you, by the way. This has become an actual problem all over the world. People get upset because of everything, no matter how pointless it is. People do not mean anything as if they are sexists and are called sexist, people don't mean their comment racist and are called racist, they do not mean anything homophobic and are still called homophobic. Being so quick with calling people names results in a prejudice itself.

You say you see no motivation but at the same time I see no motivation for the sexism card just because there is another open-hearted person in a position where in our world it is inconvenient. I think this is getting old. Sex sells and it will always be like this. We should not make more about this than it is because it does not actually cause any harm.

EDIT to not get debate problems:

I didn't mean for this thread to be a debate, so I'll just say this: Sexualization isn't black-or-white. It's not that all displays of sexuality are objectification or none of them are, especially when it comes to fictional characters who, by definition of being fictional, have no real agency. A person, in being sexual, can be a sexual subject or a sexual object, and trying to say that someone must be either okay with every instance of sexuality or none to be consistent shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what sexual objectification is.

Which is wrong. Case A counts and Case B doesn't is because of a different relation but once the core elements of what someone wants to talk about are the same then it very well is of relevance.

We talk about convencient clothes, not matter if sexist or not. And in terms of clothes you're trying to justify your view with points that are really not good enough. And why? Because fantasy. And yes, this is an actual thing if it takes away half of the points like "this is not good to use because of reason x" as character x actually does not have that problem or this "problem" is actually insignificant.

In this relation both the mechanic and the soldier example is completely fine. The gender "issue" is not relevant for this single aspect when it comes to compare a similiarity. And if you actually want a half-naked fighter example that was in army and has like no armor which is inconvenient then I still refer to Celes.

As for armor, aside from it having nothing to do with the frequent objectification of an entire gender, isn't always appropriate. It hampers speed and agility, which are also important. When an armor choice is absolute nonsense then it's annoying, but it doesn't result in that character being objectified--the character is just dumb. Trying to equate armor choice to sexual objectification feels petty and dismissive to me.

It hampers nothing. This is Final Fantasy, a world where either light armor or speed beyond imagination exists and people can jump with large weapons, no matter what. There is a great variety of armor that would still be good even if speed is the problem, which isn't. I am sorry but the only real insult comes from you by using words like "petty" and "dismissive" as if our words are worth nothing and yours are justified just because they are "against sexism" (which is not even the problem to be honest because I am against everything that is not moderate and causes harm but this here does not). You see, my thing here is not "yeah, sex sells is great" but a "so what"? I am a man and I like it. Do you hate me now or call me perverted just because I admit that one of the oldest instincts, an actual normal thing that is supposed to be good for life, that is also a part of you is a part of me? You get upset because of something that was not even meant to be an insult in the first place. And no, just showing a half-naked woman that might not be necessary for us is still no insult. Sex sells is not always sexism. It can be an insult to you personally but it is questionable how much things that were never meant to be, in no way meant to be, insults, should be understood as an insult.

This is getting nowhere, however.