Female Asura Clothing

[Disig.7169]

Hi Anet, people, and so on.

 

I want to preface this by saying, I understand why Asura females are put into the male armor designs for many armors. It would either look strange on them or just not work due to their lack of kittens and short torso. But there are plenty that would look good, and I feel like they've simply been ignored.

 

Take for instance the new PoF armor sets. I can see why the Bounty armor set would not work (especially light armor) but the Elonian, Sunspear, Warbeast, and Funerary sets not only would look better with the female armor (especially on light armor) but the male ones look downright weird. I mean, maybe it's just me, but I don't really want my Asura female to have an open frontal chest.

 

Anet, I beg you to reconsider this choice. It's hard enough finding a good armor to make Asura females look various kinds of feminine. Please consider giving us more female armor sets.

 

Thank you.

[Panda.1967]

Not to mention, their are quite a few armors that are quite inappropriate on a female.

 

[Feathered](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:Feathered_armor_asura_female_front.jpg "Feathered")

[Tribal](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:Tribal_armor_asura_female_front.jpg "Tribal")

[Flamekissed](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:Flamekissed_armor_asura_female_front.jpg "Flamekissed")

[Gladiator](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:Gladiator_armor_asura_female_front.jpg "Gladiator")

[barbaric](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:Barbaric_armor_asura_female_front.jpg "Barbaric")

[Pit Fighter](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:Pit_Fighter_armor_asura_female_front.jpg "Pit Fighter")

[scallywag](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:Scallywag_armor_asura_female_front.jpg "Scallywag")

[braham's](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:Braham%27s_armor_asura_female_front.jpg "Braham's")

[Flamewrath](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:Flamewrath_armor_asura_female_front.jpg "Flamewrath")

[Raiment of the Lich](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:Raiment_of_the_Lich_asura_female_front.jpg "Raiment of the Lich")

 

And more that arn't listed on the Wiki... And it's not like they can't make female versions of armors on Asura, there are several instances where they did exactly that, a few of which for the same reason all of the above listed armors should be changed on females Asura (and Charr)

[DietPepsi.4371]

> @Panda.1967 said:

> Not to mention, their are quite a few armors that are quite inappropriate on a female.

 

Inappropriate how exactly?

 

 

[Blodeuyn.2751]

> @DietPepsi.4371 said:

> > @Panda.1967 said:

> > Not to mention, their are quite a few armors that are quite inappropriate on a female.

>

> Inappropriate how exactly?

>

>

 

Preview the Raiment of the Lich on a female asura (link above). It is just too...odd. I don't want my character running around with what looks like boob clip armor.

[Endless Soul.5178]

> @Blodeuyn.2751 said:

> > @DietPepsi.4371 said:

> > > @Panda.1967 said:

> > > Not to mention, their are quite a few armors that are quite inappropriate on a female.

> >

> > Inappropriate how exactly?

> >

> >

>

> Preview the Raiment of the Lich on a female asura (link above). It is just too...odd. I don't want my character running around with what looks like boob clip armor.

 

Maybe other people do? _~shrugs~_

[Panda.1967]

> @DietPepsi.4371 said:

> > @Panda.1967 said:

> > Not to mention, their are quite a few armors that are quite inappropriate on a female.

>

> Inappropriate how exactly?

>

>

 

Really? Did you even look at any of the linked armors? They are ALL bare/open Chest armors... People try to claim "there's nothing there to cover up anyways", but this is simply not true. If it is deemed necessary to [cover their chest when in their underwear](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/u67TU207d6M/maxresdefault.jpg "cover their chest when in their underwear"), then there is absolutely something there that should be covered up. Leaving their chests exposed, is inappropriate, just like on a human female.

[Disig.7169]

> @DietPepsi.4371 said:

> > @Panda.1967 said:

> > Not to mention, their are quite a few armors that are quite inappropriate on a female.

>

> Inappropriate how exactly?

>

>

 

To be honest, I'm personally not trying to complain about appropriateness since that's really an opinion thing (though much of this is opinion regardless) I'm more arguing that the female versions would look good, and I would MUCH rather have those then the male versions.

[Abakk.9176]

All my female Asura are dressed to kill... literally. That means armor and lots of it.

 

All them females going off to war in their 'undies' .... brrrrr.

 

They'll all come back with second and third degree burns from exploding magics and whatnot.

 

Totally irresponsible ... tut, tut, tut... :(

[Nox Lucis.8341]

> @Panda.1967 said:

> Not to mention, their are quite a few armors that are quite inappropriate on a female.

>

> [Feathered](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:Feathered_armor_asura_female_front.jpg "Feathered")

> [Tribal](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:Tribal_armor_asura_female_front.jpg "Tribal")

> [Flamekissed](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:Flamekissed_armor_asura_female_front.jpg "Flamekissed")

> [Gladiator](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:Gladiator_armor_asura_female_front.jpg "Gladiator")

> [barbaric](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:Barbaric_armor_asura_female_front.jpg "Barbaric")

> [Pit Fighter](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:Pit_Fighter_armor_asura_female_front.jpg "Pit Fighter")

> [scallywag](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:Scallywag_armor_asura_female_front.jpg "Scallywag")

> [braham's](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:Braham%27s_armor_asura_female_front.jpg "Braham's")

> [Flamewrath](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:Flamewrath_armor_asura_female_front.jpg "Flamewrath")

> [Raiment of the Lich](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:Raiment_of_the_Lich_asura_female_front.jpg "Raiment of the Lich")

>

> And more that arn't listed on the Wiki... And it's not like they can't make female versions of armors on Asura, there are several instances where they did exactly that, a few of which for the same reason all of the above listed armors should be changed on females Asura (and Charr)

 

I have a better idea! Keep all that armor the same, lower the top of the Asura's one-piece, and have Charr lose that bra-like thing. You gotta go aaalll the way, ANet!

 

#FreeTheSixTeats

[DietPepsi.4371]

> @Panda.1967 said:

> > @DietPepsi.4371 said:

> >

> > Inappropriate how exactly?

> >

> >

>

> Really? Did you even look at any of the linked armors?

 

Yes. Yes I obviously did.

 

Here's my thinking: There _is_ nothing there to cover up. There isn't something there other than a featureless chest. Chests are not inherently inappropriate, not in western culture. Female humans in western culture cover their breasts because their breasts and mammilla are heavily sexualised. If there are not breasts and mammilla, there is nothing inappropriate to show, so it's nothing like on a human female.

 

Anet covering the chests of female Asura and Charr when in underwear was essentially an insurance policy in regards to the age rating. Just incase the organisations giving the game its initial ratings thought differently, they wouldn't have to waste time editing the models, and then reapplying for the lower age rating.

 

If you're from a culture where females can't show their bodies, then I understand why you might be uncomfortable with exposed chests of allegedly female characters in videogames, otherwise not.

 

> @Disig.7169 said:

>

> To be honest, I'm personally not trying to complain about appropriateness since that's really an opinion thing (though much of this is opinion regardless) I'm more arguing that the female versions would look good, and I would MUCH rather have those then the male versions.

 

Fair enough.

 

 

 

 

[Jovel.5706]

> @Panda.1967 said:

> Not to mention, their are quite a few armors that are quite inappropriate on a female.

>

> changed on females Asura (and Charr)

> changed

 

I remember when Mr. Mike O'Brien posted on the old forums about the legendary light precursor armor being changed in response to some hurt feelings.

He included in his post that, since the armor skins were new, nobody had the chance to "bond" with those skins and grow to love them-- they were fairly new (or unreleased and just previewable, not sure) and there was no real harm in tweaking them so early after people got peeks. But I have a friend who was really looking forward to the old legendary light precursor chest skin, that was later just changed to the male version.

 

You see, I'm also disappointed by the asura armor skins from PoF for heavy soldier professions. I don't like 'em.

But you won't see me asking them to be changed. Why? The expansion has been out for enough time for people to be using the skins, loving the skins, working hard to acquire the skins. You can't pull a switcheroo this late into the expansion and take away the sets that people love, even if you don't. The OP didn't ask for a change but instead asked for more sets of armor that show a distinction between male and female.

 

Also, "inappropriate on a female" is just your opinion.

Norn have tattoos.

Charr have fur patterns.

Sylvari have skin textures and bioluminescent glows.

Asura have skin patterns (from subtle to very prominent options).

 

People want to show off those racial features they've chosen at the start of their character customization. That means revealing armor of varying degrees. What's the point of picking a certain racial feature if it's going to be completely hidden by unisex armor? I personally LOVE the Pit Fighter's set on my female asura guardian and the Tribal set for my female asura necromancer. It's been five years, why should people be forced to give up their favorite armor sets now? A waste of work that could've been better spent on more armor.

[Panda.1967]

> @Jovel.5706 said:

> > @Panda.1967 said:

> > Not to mention, their are quite a few armors that are quite inappropriate on a female.

> >

> > changed on females Asura (and Charr)

> > changed

>

> I remember when Mr. Mike O'Brien posted on the old forums about the legendary light precursor armor being changed in response to some hurt feelings.

> He included in his post that, since the armor skins were new, nobody had the chance to "bond" with those skins and grow to love them-- they were fairly new (or unreleased and just previewable, not sure) and there was no real harm in tweaking them so early after people got peeks. But I have a friend who was really looking forward to the old legendary light precursor chest skin, that was later just changed to the male version.

>

> You see, I'm also disappointed by the asura armor skins from PoF for heavy soldier professions. I don't like 'em.

> But you won't see me asking them to be changed. Why? The expansion has been out for enough time for people to be using the skins, loving the skins, working hard to acquire the skins. You can't pull a switcheroo this late into the expansion and take away the sets that people love, even if you don't. The OP didn't ask for a change but instead asked for more sets of armor that show a distinction between male and female.

>

> Also, "inappropriate on a female" is just your opinion.

> Norn have tattoos.

> Charr have fur patterns.

> Sylvari have skin textures and bioluminescent glows.

> Asura have skin patterns (from subtle to very prominent options).

>

> People want to show off those racial features they've chosen at the start of their character customization. That means revealing armor of varying degrees. What's the point of picking a certain racial feature if it's going to be completely hidden by unisex armor? I personally LOVE the Pit Fighter's set on my female asura guardian and the Tribal set for my female asura necromancer. It's been five years, why should people be forced to give up their favorite armor sets now? A waste of work that could've been better spent on more armor.

 

I, and many others, have been complaining about the lack of female versions of armors for Asura & Charr, and the blatant inappropriateness of some of the male versions on females since the game was still in BETA!. They had ample opportunity to change them before anyone got attached. And quite frankly, there are far more people who are offended by these armors on females than who enjoy them. Heck, most of the people who enjoy them won't even miss them since they use different armors anyways and many of them are still very exposed on females of other races, though with more modesty.

 

Now, while I would honestly LOVE to see all the female versions of armors made available for Asura & Charr, I'd personally be happy to just see those offensive and inappropriate armors changed.

 

As for showing off markings, as I mentioned already, many of the armors I listed above are still very skin exposing on females of other races, just with more modesty. Look at [Feathered](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Feathered_armor "Feathered") (or flame kissed, their the same model after all), a full open back, bare midsection, and bare thighs and inner arms, arguably more skin exposure than the male version which will show off markings better but covers their chest preserving modesty. It's exposing, and not inappropriately so. Or even try out [Tribal](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Tribal_armor "Tribal") simply added chest coverings and a small alteration to the skirt that actually makes it more exposing. [Gladiator](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Gladiator_armor "Gladiator"), a slimmed down skirt, bare midriff, a top that is little more than an armored bra, it's got more skin exposure than the male version, but covers everything important unlike the male version. [Pit Fighter](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Pit_Fighter_armor "Pit Fighter") and [scallywag](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Scallywag_armor "Scallywag") are the only ones that actually lose skin exposure on their female versions, however aside from their tops, those two armors are identical across both genders on every race, and honestly, I think the female tops look better on them. Even [barbaric](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Barbaric_armor "Barbaric") gains more total skin exposure on it's female version, same with [brahm's](https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Braham%27s_armor "Brahm's") though not much more.

 

If Arenanet were to add the female verisons of all armors to Charr and Asura, then we'd see even more options to show off our fur and skin patterns. I don't want them to remove any of the existing armors, I simply want them to give us the female versions on Charr and Asura.

[Jovel.5706]

> @Panda.1967 said:

> I, and many others, have been complaining about the lack of female versions of armors for Asura & Charr, and the blatant inappropriateness of some of the male versions on females since the game was still in BETA!. They had ample opportunity to change them before anyone got attached.

 

Exactly, it's been five years since those BWE's and they've yet to change them. It's way too late to be sweeping entire armor styles under the rug now. You got your answer years ago. They changed Flamekissed because it was reskinned human t3 cultural armor that could be worn on all races for cheaper than the cultural armor vendor price. Now weigh that reason versus a personal opinion that certain armor sets reveal too much skin.

 

> @Panda.1967 said:

> And quite frankly, there are far more people who are offended by these armors on females than who enjoy them. Heck, most of the people who enjoy them won't even miss them since they use different armors anyways and many of them are still very exposed on females of other races, though with more modesty.

 

You can't really speak for others and hoping to change armor skins that have been around since 2012 (and thus have many people attached to their looks for years) is just more damaging than good. It's not even censorship at that point but downright removing sets to assuage one's tastes over another. Using more than one armor set is an irrelevant comment for the subject at hand, of course people have different armors for different builds on one character, so what?

 

> @Panda.1967 said:

> As for showing off markings, as I mentioned already, many of the armors I listed above are still very skin exposing on females of other races, just with more modesty.

>

> If Arenanet were to add the female verisons of all armors to Charr and Asura, then we'd see even more options to show off our fur and skin patterns. I don't want them to remove any of the existing armors, I simply want them to give us the female versions on Charr and Asura.

> I don't want them to remove any of the existing armors, I simply want them to give us the female versions on Charr and Asura.

 

The problem here is that you're basing the "female version" of those sets on versions that do not exist for charr and asura from human/sylvari/norn physiques. They've always been shared between male and female, or in the case of the old version of the precursor light armor, just resized versions of human armor. ArenaNet can't simply switch an ON button for sets that have never existed for the races at hand. You say you don't want existing armors removed, but want them changed because you don't like them which might as well be the same thing. Unfortunately, ArenaNet are at a point where asura toes, charr horns, charr facial ears, and asura ears still clip through resized armor skins. Let's be realistic here. Do you see that mountain of armor skins being changed, again, against the people who do enjoy them just to appease some offended people who have been complaining about them since the beta weekend events and never liked them?

 

The more reasonable thing to ask for is new armor sets, not pull the rug from under their fans' feet.

[Panda.1967]

> @Jovel.5706 said:

> The problem here is that you're basing the "female version" of those sets on versions that do not exist for charr and asura from human/sylvari/norn physiques. They've always been shared between male and female, or in the case of the old version of the precursor light armor, just resized versions of human armor. ArenaNet can't simply switch an ON button for sets that have never existed for the races at hand. You say you don't want existing armors removed, but want them changed because you don't like them which might as well be the same thing. Unfortunately, ArenaNet are at a point where asura toes, charr horns, charr facial ears, and asura ears still clip through resized armor skins. Let's be realistic here. Do you see that mountain of armor skins being changed, again, against the people who do enjoy them just to appease some offended people who have been complaining about them since the beta weekend events and never liked them?

>

> The more reasonable thing to ask for is new armor sets, not pull the rug from under their fans' feet.

 

The only official reason we were ever given as to why asura and charr females got male armors, was that it was easier that way since the models for male and female of those races don't differ much. This was lazy, but the reason for this laziness was due to time constraints with the initial release. They very well could have, and still can, make changes to these armors.Even just adding something as simple as a basic chest covering on the armors I listed would do a lot to remove the offensive and inappropriateness of those armors.

 

No one ever said anything about "simply flipping a switch". Do you really think that everyone who makes this suggestion and brings up this issue has no idea that these sorts of changes require time? I'm perfectly aware of this fact. I do model work myself, I know how complex and time consuming it can be to rework an armor model onto a new body frame, however it's a lot faster and easier to rework those armors than to start new. And, no, they would not have to start new, they actually already have a version of the armors that will require the least amount of adjustment to as well, the Sylvari have a body shape that is almost completely flat chested, the armor for that body shape would be the best starting point for the adjusted models for Asura, as most of the hard work (removing the breasts) is done. Armors for Charr on the other hand would be more complex due to their body shape being completely different from the other races.

 

What I, and many others, have been asking for for years, is NOT removing existing armors and it's nowhere near the same thing. The armors will still exist on males, we only ask to get the female versions made available. At the very least, just for the armors that are inappropriate on females that I've linked twice in this thread. Hell, some have even tried asking in the past for them to add an option, and even for them to just make body gender versions of all armors available to all races (yes, I'm aware that's a monstrous mountain of work, personally not a fan of that route as it's WAY too much work). There have even been suggestions to just add new armors with the female versions of old armor skins available to asura/charr... of course those suggestions got flamed to no end because they benefit only those two races and simply add a second copy of a bunch of armors to the other races.

 

Every solution upsets someone. Honestly, I firmly believe that the best solution to this, however, is NOT to leave it alone. The best solution, is to fix the armors that are offensive.

 

Also, when they added Raiment of the Lich, there was a MASSIVE outcry about how blatantly offensive and inappropriate that outfit was on Female Charr and Asura, threads kept popping up about it left and right, most of which were locked or deleted without a response. It is still completely inappropriate and very offensive, and still needs to be changed. However, Arenanet definately took notice after that, since we started to see female versions of new outfits on Asura and Charr after that. If only they would have kept doing that, and extended it to armors.

[Zaltys.7649]

> @Panda.1967 said:

> Every solution upsets someone. Honestly, I firmly believe that the best solution to this, however, is NOT to leave it alone. The best solution, is to fix the armors that are offensive.

Well, I'm not offended, nor is it inappropriate in my culture. So I don't see anything that needs to be 'fixed'. However, I'm offended by the idea that female charr and asura (but not the males) should cover up.

 

Maybe stop pushing your personal morals on others?

[Abakk.9176]

Charr and Asura are like cats/dogs and frogs/salamanders. How can anyone be offended by something that isn't there ???????

[Jojo.6140]

> @Panda.1967 said:

> Now, while I would honestly LOVE to see all the female versions of armors made available for Asura & Charr, I'd personally be happy to just see those offensive and inappropriate armors changed.

 

 

Wow, how can one be so intolerant? Just because some armors offend you for some reason means for you that they should be changed for everyone?

I used the tribal armor for a very long time and really enjoyed the fact that it is a more skimpy armor. Most of the armor already covers the whole body anyway, so youve got plenty to choose from that wont offend you. But leave others alone who might have a different taste.

The upper bodies of female Asuras doent have anything that needs to be covered up.

[Panda.1967]

> @Zaltys.7649 said:

> > @Panda.1967 said:

> > Every solution upsets someone. Honestly, I firmly believe that the best solution to this, however, is NOT to leave it alone. The best solution, is to fix the armors that are offensive.

> Well, I'm not offended, nor is it inappropriate in my culture. So I don't see anything that needs to be 'fixed'. However, I'm offended by the idea that female charr and asura (but not the males) should cover up.

>

> Maybe stop pushing your personal morals on others?

 

My personal morals have nothing to do with it, it's general society's morals that make these armors inappropriate on females. My personal morals say there is nothing wrong with walking around topless if I want to. However, despite what my personal morals say, I can't go outside and go about my normal daily life topless, or I'd get charged with indecent exposure. So while, my personal morals say there's nothing wrong, the rest of the world says there is. When it comes to these armors, quite honestly I PREFER the female versions. They look better, simple as that. However, my preferences and personal morals aside, I can see that these armors would be viewed as inappropriate in our society. I can't just post saying "I like the female versions, change them" because people will ALWAYS (speaking from experience here) respond with "there's nothing wrong with the armors, they are unisex, so why should they be changed." Because of people giving that response, I choose to point out that the armors are inappropriate and offensive.

 

Honestly, I want to see all armors on Charr and Asura given proper female versions, but I know that won't ever happen, so instead I target the ones that are inappropriate and offensive to many in our society.

[Maikimaik.1974]

Asura don't have breasts, so there's absolutely no reason to cover anything.

[Albadaran.1283]

> @Panda.1967 said:

> > @DietPepsi.4371 said:

> > > @Panda.1967 said:

> > > Not to mention, their are quite a few armors that are quite inappropriate on a female.

> >

> > Inappropriate how exactly?

> >

> >

>

> Really? Did you even look at any of the linked armors? They are ALL bare/open Chest armors... People try to claim "there's nothing there to cover up anyways", but this is simply not true. If it is deemed necessary to [cover their chest when in their underwear](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/u67TU207d6M/maxresdefault.jpg "cover their chest when in their underwear"), then there is absolutely something there that should be covered up. Leaving their chests exposed, is inappropriate, just like on a human female.

Lol, you never played games like Tera or Black Desert Online I suppose! Compared to them Anet's female fashion is quite... Conservative.

Anyway, I would like female Asura clothing to look more female. In a gothic way ;)

 

[Zaltys.7649]

> @Panda.1967 said:

> My personal morals have nothing to do with it, it's general society's morals that make these armors inappropriate on females.

You keep insisting that it's offensive and inappropriate. Which makes it an obvious moral problem for you.

 

As for the rest of us, we don't find it any more offensive than Donald Duck walking around pantless. In other words, not offensive in the least.

[Panda.1967]

> @Albadaran.1283 said:

> > @Panda.1967 said:

> > > @DietPepsi.4371 said:

> > > > @Panda.1967 said:

> > > > Not to mention, their are quite a few armors that are quite inappropriate on a female.

> > >

> > > Inappropriate how exactly?

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Really? Did you even look at any of the linked armors? They are ALL bare/open Chest armors... People try to claim "there's nothing there to cover up anyways", but this is simply not true. If it is deemed necessary to [cover their chest when in their underwear](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/u67TU207d6M/maxresdefault.jpg "cover their chest when in their underwear"), then there is absolutely something there that should be covered up. Leaving their chests exposed, is inappropriate, just like on a human female.

> Lol, you never played games like Tera or Black Desert Online I suppose! Compared to them Anet's female fashion is quite... Conservative.

> Anyway, I would like female Asura clothing to look more female. In a gothic way ;)

>

 

Actually I have played those games, along with many others with more questionable fashion. Those games obtained higher ESRB ratings for their armors as well. And, unlike GW2, they actually managed to ensure that every armor for females covers their chest, even when it's on a race that have no breasts such as the Elin in Tera. ArenaNet however, made the effort to cover their chests in underwear, but then slapped on male armors with exposed chests. The games I've played with more questionable fashion, include a couple that have armors with exposed breasts, however those games have mature ratings to them due to partial nudity. GW2 has a Teen rating for "Blood, Mild Language, Use of Alcohol, Violence". Notice, it doesn't include any of the following: Partial nudity, sexual content, suggestive themes, or anything similar. So, why do we have armors on Asura & Charr that result in "partial nudity" and a mature rating on any other game out there? We shouldn't. Heck, even Wildstar ended up having to add underwear to their gerbil and robot races just to avoid a mature rating from the ESRB. Honestly, ArenaNet got lucky that those armors didn't trigger a higher rating for the game. They still need to be changed on females though.

[Thelgar.7214]

My Asura Warrior Barbasurian has been wearing the Scallywag top for four years. I'd like it to stay the same. There is nothing inappropriate about it. She's Asuran not Puritan.

[Oglaf.1074]

> @Jovel.5706 said:

> Norn have tattoos.

 

^this is the reason why I want a "Hide chest armour"-option. I want my male Norn Warrior to rush into battle bare-chested to show off his awesome tattoos and stuff.

 

Conan the Barbarian-style.

 

 

 

[Disig.7169]

Okay, my own thread clearly just got hijacked. To keep on topic I want to iterate: this is NOT supposed to be about what people consider inappropriate or not. This is supposed to bring up the fact that a female race has not a lot of options in regards to female armor which I personally think is a HUGE oversight on Anets part. Female Charr included here come to think of it. I think the NEW ARMOR IN POF could do with some revision in that area. I'm hoping Anet reconsiders giving the male versions of the new armors to female Asura when the female armors would look quite good. That's all I want personally. Please, if you want to discuss inappropriateness of armors on a fantasy race start another thread!