this is a great piece of art and it is amazing to me because how you put it together from the big to small details in it , to the rich color color layout with the sharp edge to smooth edge it make it pop out to the screen and with the well play warm to cool colors willing catch my eye and the flow of it again amazing beautiful piece of art
She's missing a leg and I really dislike the passive expression on her face. Literally nothing about this says 'War Goddess'. She doesn't look ready for war (and I don't just mean the silly sexualized armor), she doesn't look tough, she looks like someone's sexual fantasy waiting to be consumed and she has no engagement in it. The sword is also angled poorly and doesn't seem to actually be held by her, maybe it was added after she was drawn? That's what it looks like.
Sure she's beautiful but finding beautiful women online hardly takes any effort. The artist is clearly skilled which is why it's sad to see them spend their time on making such a bland, sexualized image that does nothing but titillate and it's value as 'wank material' is minimal. I like that she doesn't look like she was drawn from porn, and nothing pisses me off more than a woman drawn with an O-face in a scene where she shouldn't. Still she isn't engaging the viewer, she's just being passively viewed and sexualized.
In contrast the men in the background have a strong firm stance and even with their eyes hidden the angle of the masked man on the right suggests he's looking directly at the viewer. They look like they're ready for a fight while the 'goddess' is just posing for a swimsuit calendar.
Nicely done piece. But I do so love double standards.
Skimpy armor on Goddess = "Impractical". "Not suited for battle." "Sexist."
Lack of battle-ready armor on male guards? (Almost) no comments. A-ok. Perfectly fine! Woohoo!
At the end of the day, she's a Goddess and it probably doesn't matter how much (or how little) armor she's using. And the same could be said for her guards. They're divine, immortal beings, and can do whatever they damn well please.
it is less to me that the garb is impractical and more that you are shown a female who's genitals are covered by a bit of decorative gold the size of a postage stamp while her tits wobble to the swing of her incredibly difficult-to-mange walk while the guards behind her only have bared chests as a 'lack'. it is less a double standard towards men and women and more you are supposed to notice the piece of wobbly fuck-meat in the forefront and not the bland faceless props in the background. goddess or not this piece is here to wow you then give you something to wank off to and is a very notable piece of what is seriously wrong with the minds of people who do not understand or care that pictures can speak and they often say nasty things
to be frank, it is less about her being a goddess and more about her being a sexual thing. she looks nothing like what she is presented to be and no amount of 'well she isn't a mortal' can excuse the blatant disregard for reality the artist showed his 'goddess' and the nasty hypersexualization that is put upon her and her alone, hell her breast armor has colored circles around the part where her nipples would be so you automatically think of them while the men have none at all
You clicked on this piece to have a good look at it, so I don't understand your problem! There are tens of thousands more offensive pics on this site, this one just seems to be a really well painted fantasy picture of a beautiful woman, whats wrong with that? Relax, there are bigger problems in this world than beautiful paintings!
it was a picture that i could not find comfort in seeing get a dd, my 'problem' is i don't like seeing smut getting glorified and what is your 'problem' i have an issue and you don't, why are you trying to assuage me by calling this piece beautiful? barring the lazy background and incorrectly drawn legs i will agree it is well drawn but that does not change the offense i have with the content and it does not change the fact that i am unhappy enough say something and that i chose to say it to someone who would listen instead of just complaining to the artist who does not care that he is offending people and just wanted to draw a nearly naked female and is happy to get a dd for it
for the record though, pictures like /this/ contribute to some of those bigger problems
I suppose the question I'd pose then would be: if she were completely naked, would the piece be any different? Is it her near-nakedness that is offensive, or simply the sexualized armor? Or both taken together?
The second thing I'd point out is: if the figure in the foreground was male, presented in a similar manner, would there be gasps of "sexism"? Knowing this site, no. It'd be completely "okay" and "hot" then. Except if the female guards in the back were wearing the same type of armor as the male guards. Then it'd still be sexist, because there would be breasts showing.
This double standard isn't something I personally find offensive--as there's very little that offends me. But I do find it amusing. It exists in great abundance on this site.
while there would be people who would complain for the most part it would be different. being nude is not the same as being naked as odd as that may sound, if she is wearing nothing at all then the focus is on her in general and it becomes an issue of 'is this art or trash' instead of 'is the female char being sexually exploited' it changes the perception of what is important and what is not. or more simply put, you are not drawn to each 'forbidden' part because the whole of it either is forbidden or is not forbidden depending on the individual
well you have a point with the general assumption of this site being ok with it(the bulk of our users are minors afteral and lack the understanding to take note of bias that is not explained to them) but quite a few of our users would still be offended, maybe not as loud since it is less socially accepted to complain about the objectification of men since it is not so widely spread(sure you have to be 'sexy' to wear certain underwear as far as commercials and ads say but downright ugly men have their own tv shows and places in congress which is simply not allowed the bulk of females who must still fit beauty standards set 110 years ago). granted if i saw those guards looking exactly like they did with the only difference being the girth of their hips and female-looking breasts(they would be the same size granted for that body-type) i would not see a problem, though if the artist did what they did to the goddess and made the female guards small underfed creatures with large breasts then i could see it as offensive, there is a difference in the portrayal as well as the costuming. if the male was shown as the woman is shown and would have the basic gym-rat look of tiny waist, slim delicate hips, massive muscles and a notably large and barely covered cock-bulge with his balls scantily covered or otherwise showing then that would be the same thing but if he was shown, as most males are, with his junk covered and his waist believable and his armor /not/ only there to show off his shape and neathers it isn't offensive
i actually am one who finds it offensive but i find both ends of it to be sickening not just one though i dug up two images that say it better than i do;
Like some other people have been saying, this 'goddess of war' seems more like some sort of prostitute or Victoria's Secret model instead of a woman who is supposed to be strong enough to hold her own on the battle field.
Yeah...I personally would have liked to see more muscle on her. Even though she's a "goddess", I doubt she could hold her own with a model body, with no muscle mass. If she was a little more brawny, I probably wouldn't mind the pic as much as it already does.
Maybe this is just her under armor, and she takes off the rest of her armor after a battle because it's just so heavy and awesome and actually functions like proper armor and wont leave her dead and bloody in a ditch?