They just have thighs that's all.
Heheh yeah Kids are cruel. Esp if you are handicapped. But you'll eventually get over it.I STILL remember and feel insecure about my legs after a friend made a comment about mine turning purple when I'm cold in 1994. I stopped wearing skirts for many many years after that one insensitive comment, and it was one of many made about my appearance that really messed me up when I was a teen. People can be so cruel.
BTW: This is not a thread about real women. It's a discussion about an ingame model. There is nothing hurtful about it.
Agreed.That is the thing tho, OK so may be the human model is "average", but do we want average? No, most people want "pretty".
That "Pretty" very much depends on your target audience though. If you want to address a wide one "average" is a safe bet.
Sexual selection and natural selection don't necessarily push evolution in the same direction. The classic example is the peacock's large tail plumage. The plumage is sexually selected for, but works against the survivability of the male (making them more susceptible to predation).
As an example in humans, being taller may have been an advantage when our ancestors lived in tall grasslands. There is no indication that it is beneficial outside of that environment. It is actually a detriment in colder climates, yet it remained as a preferred trait in males. Of course the physical disadvantages of certain traits is mitigated greatly with technology and civilization. This pushes us further into the realm of sexual and artificial selection. I mention artificial selection because many societies augment sexual selection by enhancing sex traits through artificial means (makeup, garments, surgery, etc), masking the true sex traits. These hypersexualized traits work as supernormal stimuli for our internal mechanisms of sexual selection.
Evolution still occurs with artificial selection based on societal practices separate from sexual and natural selection. Evolution never stops.
Last edited by Aquamonkey; 2012-11-25 at 10:32 PM.
Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
Maybe... maybe not.I mention artificial selection because many societies augment sexual selection by enhancing sex traits through artificial means (makeup, garments, surgery, etc), masking the true sex traits. These hypersexualized traits work as supernormal stimuli for our internal mechanisms of sexual selection
Personally: I find 99.5% of what women do to themselves to be "pretty" absolutely ridiculous.
When I see a girl with high heels there are 2 thoughts that occur:
1. How the F* can she walk with that?!
2. Damn she'll regret wearing that crap later on. Poor feet...
Still I wouldn't put "beauty trends" that are perpetuated by the mass media in the same category as evolution. Why? B/C hungering and working yourself out to death just to be superslim and "sexy" are not phenotypes that are carried on by your genes. Undertaking these procedures to resemble some artificial "optimum" image are willful decisions every woman/man has to make for her/himself.
As you travel it becomes more extreme :
We will never come to a agreement Until Blizzard puts in a detailed character creator (slides and such) because our cultures has defined what the "perfect" female body.
"Humility defeats pride, Master Yang has preached. Pride defeats man"
A weight scale adjuster would be nice for all races. Make your choice of if you want a rail thin character or if you want a muscular one. Everyone can be happy then!
The human female model is proportionally idealized. The only thing that's off is that the legs are too long in relation to the torso. It's not "average" or "normal", it's "pretty" and "slim". If you wanted to assume every woman was fit and healthy and of a relatively average body type to begin with (so not overly short/buff/skinny/tall), THEN the human female model is "normal".
It is by no rational comparison "fat" in any appreciable way, and making it any skinnier would make it look inhuman. The way blood elves and night elves and draenei absolutely do. Now, if you LIKE skinny girls, fine. As I said before; I don't care two whits what you personally find to be "pretty".
But for bacon's sake, stop calling that body type normal. It's not the norm. It's skinny. You're allowed to like skinny girls. But labeling skinny girls as "normal" just creates the societal imbalance that causes normal 12 year old girls to develop eating disorders because they have an actually normal body type and have to starve themselves to try and reach what people are labeling as "normal".
The human female model is already bikini-model or professional-athlete proportional. It's not a little chunky or heavy in the thighs. That's what a normal, fit woman looks like. The ONLY thing off is that the legs are too long. If it's too hefty for you, that's fine, but accept and admit that your preference is for skinny thin girls.
Nothing like a bit of chunky monkey!
That's a weird thing to say considering you're basing your analysis on what you find pretty. All in all, it just means that they are looking good to you, while they can look unappealing to some people. It's only a matter of perception, though, being objective here, I really think you're exagerating things quite a bit. Human females could be a little bit skinnier and it certainly wouldn't make them look inhuman or anything.As I said before; I don't care two whits what you personally find to be "pretty".
I don't think human females are fat, but they're nowhere near being close to proportionally idealized.
Normality doesn't exist, because it depends on subjectivity. You can base things on the average (which is exactly why people are using this term, because it is objective ), but then again, average isn't athletic at all. Most females nowadays are either quite round, or slender. (And by slender, I mean way more than human females in game, and much more closer to blood elves.) The easiest way to see that is to look at average weight surveys around the web. You'll see that most women are either under or over the weight that would fit best for their height/age, and that it's just fine, and not alarming at all.
Humans are fine, so are blood elves. None of these two are actually alarmingly fat or skinny, and considering this, it's all a matter of taste.
I think female human and Blood elf models are fine. The human's thighs are the only thing disproportional by a small bit, kind of as if she had a kid in the past or something. The only reason I really prefer human to belf is because the belf's weapons are too small. I like that they are abnormally large on humans. I think I prefer the somewhat larger thighs too, I wish belf's were slightly over proportional to the rest of their body as well.
I knew this would be Salandrin!
Basically what many are saying; the thighs may be a tad large, but other than that, they look fine. Again, if anything, Blood Elves should be less skinny (only slightly; actually, nevermind, it fits their lore).
“It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities.” - Albus Dumbledore
Models are generally long time outdated in WoW, but female humans are one of the best imo - every armor looks properly on them (can't say that about any kind of elves). Althought i prefer female draenei model for melees and undead female for casters (cast animation is just too good), but human females are definetly one of the better models around.
And male models are bleh, never rolled male toon since my first one. Trolls males generally should be wiped from WoW client, they're disgusting (imo ^^).
The humans are not fat, they're a fine shape. But that doesn't mean the Blood Elves are too skinny either. Leave the Blood Elves thin and the Human women voluptuous so we have some diversity.
Sure, you can be healthy and athletic and skinny, but most aren't. That's why "skinny" is a word; it refers to thinner than normal. The human female model gets "normal" pretty close to right; some women are heftier when fit (a lot of female body builders, for instance, or women who earn the label "amazonian"), some are slimmer, but they're close to the middle range.
That's why I'm using "normal". "Average" would factor in all women, of varying degrees of fitness, and that changes the numbers. I could say "average for women with a fairly athletic lifestyle and a healthy diet", but that's a mouthful, so I use "normal" instead.Normality doesn't exist, because it depends on subjectivity. You can base things on the average (which is exactly why people are using this term, because it is objective ), but then again, average isn't athletic at all.
It has absolutely nothing to do with my own preferences.
Another image hauled from the depths of the tubes;
The human female model is close to the middle. People are claiming the girl on the left is "normal", I'm saying she ain't, she's skinny. And my personal preference is definitely the lady on the right, if I got to pick. So please stop with the "that's just your preference, man" stuff; if I were pushing my preference, we'd be using the panda female's build as the new "normal".