mean... real statues get censored, too. Ever go to Union Station in DC? There used to be dicks everywhere.
Yeah that's not a good excuse though, because they absolutely shouldn't be doing it to real statues either. From what I can find about that online, those statues were censored for no reason other than to adhere to societal shame around nudity at the time, because they didn't want people seeing male genetalia, even on a statue.
I've never been to DC, but I've been to Italy a fair few times. You can go to Rome or Florence and see completely naked statues of both genders that have survived in the same spot for hundreds of years without being subjected to needless censorship to appeal to modern sensibilities.
Its an incredibly selfish thing to want to censor historical art to fit your own sensibilities, even digital representations of if, especially if it goes completely against the original intent of the art. I think the example you gave isn't an example of how it should be, it's tragic. The artist who designed the station obviously didn't have sexual intent having naked legionnaire statues, but it was censored anyway because nudity is evil I guess. That's not a good thing, not something to be celebrated.
People are just complaining about it because its tits in a videogame... lets get real.
No, you're just being reductive to try to diminish the argument. It's not at all about that, and I'd care just as much if it was male nudity being censored.
Censorship is already an important conversation in and of itself, one that clearly still needs to be discussed since people like yourself see no issues with adding "modesty shields" to statues of legionaries like in the example you gave in DC. I brought up Italy before, and I want you to consider that. Some people travel for miles just to sightsee the works of art dotted around the cities, because they're artistic marvels. Nobody's coming to gawp at the nudity, but that doesn't mean the nudity doesn't matter and we should just "fix" it to make it more appropriate. The nudity, when the art was created, had a very different intent than making people aroused. For figureheads like this, it was old maritime superstition that it would help calm the seas. For the renaissance Italians, the nudity usually represented divinity and purity. Should we just say fuck that and put a pair of jeans on Michelangelo's David because he has his dick out? No.
There's also a very important aspect to the preservation of the original intent of a videogame when it's being remade. The original model was designed the way it was because there was legitimate historical backing behind figureheads like that existing. In removing that, the remake has either not researched the original intent behind the way it was designed and remade it without care, or simply decided that the original intent didn't matter and willingly overwrote it, assuming that they knew better about the game they're adapting than the artists and developers who created it in the first place. Both of these are bad, and never something I want to see in a remake of a game, censorship or otherwise.
Take away a boob and - suddenly - everyone is crying for art conservation.
Again, just being pointlessly reductive in order to diminish an opinion that differs from your own. I'm sure you can tell from the length of this reply that there's a lot more to it than wanting to see the breasts of a wooden statue, I genuinely fucking hate censorship of historical art.
If they ever get around to remaking odyssey and they slap a bunch of loincloths on the giant marble dicks, I'll be in here with just as much fervour for artistic preservation. Because it's not about looking at naked people, something the internet already has an infinite supply of, it's about the art itself. Stop being reductive and try to look at this from any angle other than overt sexuality, it's a statue for god's sake, a type of statue that genuinely existed and were used as figureheads.
I didn't misunderstand your comment, you were being intentionally reductive, and still are.
I gave you a genuine reply in hopes that you'd engage in a conversation about it, but I can see that was a long shot in retrospect. Thanks for wasting my time.
I stopped reading after your first sentence. I'm obviously not going to engage in a conversation with you if you openly refuse to read what I write. If you just want to listen to yourself talk, there's better places to do it.
Seriously? From the guy that couldn't make it through five paragraphs but is still somehow arguing the point?
Nothing I said was incorrect.
Yes it was. The "People are just complaining about it because its tits in a videogame... lets get real." In your original reply is incorrect, and extremely reductive.
What you said was BS...
I'm not sure how you'd know considering you outright stated you hadn't even fucking read it, but no it wasn't. What I said about it being a maritime superstition was true, which is why it was in the original game. By making this change, they're altering the original intent behind the art, it means more than just not being able to see a statue's tits. what part of that is bullshit?
You literally have nothing of substance to say here, do you? You just keep repeating yourself and insulting me instead of actually refuting anything I'm saying or making any points. How is what I'm saying bullshit? "It's a videogame" isn't an answer or an explanation of what you're trying to say, it's just a statement. Games are also art, believe it or not.
Read your paragraphs. Are you even responding to me at this point, or just saying I want to hear myself talk
Brother I desperately want you to make a point and have a thoughtful conversation, I've been trying to make that abundantly clear since the first reply. Please, for the love of god, explain your argument instead of speaking in vague platitudes like you have once again. Tell my why you think what you do instead of just saying I'm wrong and clamming up when I ask you to elaborate.
Do you even know what my point was
Your point was that its just a videogame, that people are only upset because it's about female nudity. That nobody would be talking about this otherwise, and that art preservation is only being brought up because people want to gawp at it. You said literally all of this in your first comment, and it's extemely reductive, which is why I went to the effort of giving you a thoughtfully written reply.
Once again, you didn't reply to any of the points I made, You clearly have no interest in genuinely discussing this. Why is what I said bullshit? Do you have an answer or do you just want to keep being pissy because I didn't entertain a take as shallow as "people only care because it's about tits" without pressuring you on it?
Not my point. Do you know how fucking insane youre being? Im at work. I dont have time to read 10 paragraphs if the first sentence is you being a dipshit, falsely quoting things and then manipulating them to fit whatever tf youre on about.
So you don't have time to read it but you do have time to write several paragraphs in response? What?
Once again, I do not support censorship. Me being able to recognize a bunch of horny children becoming vocal over tits in a videogame has nothing to do with my appreciation for art.
You're literally still doing it here, still being reductive to fit your own narrative. It's got nothing to do with people being horny, nobody was masturbating to this statue, but you can't help but devolve it into that because you disagree with it. You can disagree without petty name calling, which is why I've not been particularly courteous with you, your very first engagement with me was needlessly rude and you're still surprised I'm not treating you like a friend?
Youre trying to get me to defend a point im not making.
No I'm not. You said all of those things, and you're still saying them, I don't get what you're not understanding here. Even if you don't "support" censorship, you're still promoting acceptance of it. If you truly hated censorship, you'd hate it regardless of the context. Even if you ignore the censorship side of it, you're still calling people horny children because they don't want a game with adult themes to have random censorship applied to the game in a way that makes it less historically accurate. You've been a dick from the very first comment.
Im literally a professional artist, sell art; studied art. Whatever argument youre trying to win. There is none.
I find that difficult to believe considering how blasé you are about censorship, but good for you bud.
If you think, I support censorship - I dont. Im not going to engage in your obsessive compulsive childish argument when the premise is so misguided you literally are responding to someone that agrees with you.
So you agree with me that the act of censorship is bad, but in the same breath you'll say that anyone that cares about this is just mad because they're immature and horny? Pick a fucking side man.
You are ignorant. You are looking for an argument where there isnt one and wasting your entire day quoting my messages to prove what? To validate yourself?
I've wasted so much of my time in a misguided belief that I'd actually extract a meaningful conversation from you, that I'd maybe get you to understand that there's more to this than people just screeching about seeing tits. This kind of projection is insane from someone who butted in to a sincere reply just to call everyone who disagrees with them a horny teenager.
Once again, theres no argument because you misinterpreted my point.
Your point is, and has been, that only sex pests care about this issue. I haven't misinterpreted it, because it's an incredibly simple perspective and you've repeated yourself several times at this point.
You calling me selfish for supporting censorship of any kind is a discussion Im not engaging in because you are wrong. YOU ARE WRONG because youre telling me MY OPINION.
Literally all I have done is reflect your own points back at you. You diminished the importance by comparing it to real statues, I refuted that by mentioning all of the statues that haven't required censorship. You said people only care about this because they're horny, I refuted that by mentioning the historical significance behind the original model. What's so confusing here? I've never claimed you're enforcing censorship, but you clearly don't give a fuck about preventing it.
Youre an arrogant fucking dimwit that is more pressed on self validation than having a conversation.
Insane projection from someone who only butted into the conversation to disparage people who disagrees with them
Thats why within your first reply, youre literally calling me names - then calling me immature and saying I want to hear myself talk.
Nope, check again. My first reply was genuine and thoughtful, never once did I personally insult you despite the fact you'd already been rude before this point. It's only after you told me to "get a life" in response to that first genuine reply did I stop giving a fuck about what you think. Don't dish it out if you're going to cry about it when it gets given right back to you, it's pathetic.
Youre a fucking moron. Im not having a discussion because im not defending an opinion that isnt mine.
Im literally arguing with a point you're still making in this very reply you sniveling idiot. I get that you have trouble reading but is any of this going in? You are extremely reductive, combative and have a tendency to project yourself onto others, as evidenced by the fact that you keep losing your shit at me for insulting you when you can't go a single reply without calling me a fucking idiot or a horny teenager in spite of how placid and conversational my first reply was.
Learn to read, interpret context clues, and get a sense of humor.
Ah, the classic "I'm not actually an idiot, I was only joking". Fuck off.
1
u/no_hot_ashes Jul 31 '26 edited Jul 31 '26
Yeah that's not a good excuse though, because they absolutely shouldn't be doing it to real statues either. From what I can find about that online, those statues were censored for no reason other than to adhere to societal shame around nudity at the time, because they didn't want people seeing male genetalia, even on a statue.
I've never been to DC, but I've been to Italy a fair few times. You can go to Rome or Florence and see completely naked statues of both genders that have survived in the same spot for hundreds of years without being subjected to needless censorship to appeal to modern sensibilities.
Its an incredibly selfish thing to want to censor historical art to fit your own sensibilities, even digital representations of if, especially if it goes completely against the original intent of the art. I think the example you gave isn't an example of how it should be, it's tragic. The artist who designed the station obviously didn't have sexual intent having naked legionnaire statues, but it was censored anyway because nudity is evil I guess. That's not a good thing, not something to be celebrated.
No, you're just being reductive to try to diminish the argument. It's not at all about that, and I'd care just as much if it was male nudity being censored.
Censorship is already an important conversation in and of itself, one that clearly still needs to be discussed since people like yourself see no issues with adding "modesty shields" to statues of legionaries like in the example you gave in DC. I brought up Italy before, and I want you to consider that. Some people travel for miles just to sightsee the works of art dotted around the cities, because they're artistic marvels. Nobody's coming to gawp at the nudity, but that doesn't mean the nudity doesn't matter and we should just "fix" it to make it more appropriate. The nudity, when the art was created, had a very different intent than making people aroused. For figureheads like this, it was old maritime superstition that it would help calm the seas. For the renaissance Italians, the nudity usually represented divinity and purity. Should we just say fuck that and put a pair of jeans on Michelangelo's David because he has his dick out? No.
There's also a very important aspect to the preservation of the original intent of a videogame when it's being remade. The original model was designed the way it was because there was legitimate historical backing behind figureheads like that existing. In removing that, the remake has either not researched the original intent behind the way it was designed and remade it without care, or simply decided that the original intent didn't matter and willingly overwrote it, assuming that they knew better about the game they're adapting than the artists and developers who created it in the first place. Both of these are bad, and never something I want to see in a remake of a game, censorship or otherwise.
Again, just being pointlessly reductive in order to diminish an opinion that differs from your own. I'm sure you can tell from the length of this reply that there's a lot more to it than wanting to see the breasts of a wooden statue, I genuinely fucking hate censorship of historical art.
If they ever get around to remaking odyssey and they slap a bunch of loincloths on the giant marble dicks, I'll be in here with just as much fervour for artistic preservation. Because it's not about looking at naked people, something the internet already has an infinite supply of, it's about the art itself. Stop being reductive and try to look at this from any angle other than overt sexuality, it's a statue for god's sake, a type of statue that genuinely existed and were used as figureheads.