Edit | Leave a Comment | Favorite
More Like This: (Beta Temporary Feature)
User Comments:
Votakoi commented at 2022-11-15 03:09:46 » #2763585
The artist never stated Sheik was male, in fact in one of the Twitter posts they say "her Sheikh form" when translated. If you're going by the image itself, then I see no "bulge" there, else there'd be a contour of it. Instead it's all a smooth slope. Sure, artists can reinterpret Sheik as male so long as it's clarified, but this isn't one of those cases. So by default, Sheik = female = Zelda. Hate to break it to you, pal.
2 Points
Flag
The artist never stated Sheik was male, in fact in one of the Twitter posts they say "her Sheikh form" when translated. If you're going by the image itself, then I see no "bulge" there, else there'd be a contour of it. Instead it's all a smooth slope. Sure, artists can reinterpret Sheik as male so long as it's clarified, but this isn't one of those cases. So by default, Sheik = female = Zelda. Hate to break it to you, pal.
2 Points
Flag
MushMan commented at 2022-11-15 22:14:43 » #2763749
Also, even if the artist said that, the "her" part refers to Zelda, not to the form itself. If the artist really intended Sheik to be female in drag, what you have provided doesn't really prove anything. Also, what kind of woman would clearly have this type of "contour" that is a clearly a man's? You can interpret this as many ways as you want, but with the obvious man features, down to the crotch, which obviously no woman would have, the reality of this drawing is a different one than from the one that's established in canon, clearly.
4 Points
Flag
Also, even if the artist said that, the "her" part refers to Zelda, not to the form itself. If the artist really intended Sheik to be female in drag, what you have provided doesn't really prove anything. Also, what kind of woman would clearly have this type of "contour" that is a clearly a man's? You can interpret this as many ways as you want, but with the obvious man features, down to the crotch, which obviously no woman would have, the reality of this drawing is a different one than from the one that's established in canon, clearly.
4 Points
Flag
Votakoi commented at 2022-11-15 23:24:45 » #2763762
I am not going to go on and search for something for you, which you can easily look for yourself. You're basing all of this on *your* perception, not what the artist intended. I don't see a bulge or "man parts" as you call'em. What other "man features" are you pointing out? The flat chest? Easy, chest binding. Usually done for disguises, magically-enhanced or not. The contour I mentioned is a part of anatomy all humanoids have in the lower half of the body leading to the groin, but males tend to have a certain *other* contour poking out even a smidge, and the light in the picture would give that away. Simple artistic light direction and all.
1 Points
Flag
I am not going to go on and search for something for you, which you can easily look for yourself. You're basing all of this on *your* perception, not what the artist intended. I don't see a bulge or "man parts" as you call'em. What other "man features" are you pointing out? The flat chest? Easy, chest binding. Usually done for disguises, magically-enhanced or not. The contour I mentioned is a part of anatomy all humanoids have in the lower half of the body leading to the groin, but males tend to have a certain *other* contour poking out even a smidge, and the light in the picture would give that away. Simple artistic light direction and all.
1 Points
Flag
MushMan commented at 2022-11-15 23:40:38 » #2763764
>I am not going to go on and search for something for you, which you can easily look for yourself.
"Dude, trust me."
>You're basing all of this on *your* perception, not what the artist intended.
If that's what you're insisting so much, why don't ask the artist themselves and then come back to me?
>The flat chest? Easy, chest binding.
No denying that, but that doesn't automatically result what obviously looks like male pecs here.
>The contour I mentioned is a part of anatomy all humanoids have in the lower half of the body leading to the groin.
And this contour here is clearly not something you see from a woman; that's obviously a man crotch. Compare that to other Sheik drawings where she doesn't have the crotch shaped like it is here. You're saying that I'm basing all of this on "my" perception, yet you are denying what's really evident in this drawing, buddy.
4 Points
Flag
>I am not going to go on and search for something for you, which you can easily look for yourself.
"Dude, trust me."
>You're basing all of this on *your* perception, not what the artist intended.
If that's what you're insisting so much, why don't ask the artist themselves and then come back to me?
>The flat chest? Easy, chest binding.
No denying that, but that doesn't automatically result what obviously looks like male pecs here.
>The contour I mentioned is a part of anatomy all humanoids have in the lower half of the body leading to the groin.
And this contour here is clearly not something you see from a woman; that's obviously a man crotch. Compare that to other Sheik drawings where she doesn't have the crotch shaped like it is here. You're saying that I'm basing all of this on "my" perception, yet you are denying what's really evident in this drawing, buddy.
4 Points
Flag
Votakoi commented at 2022-11-15 23:51:24 » #2763766
"Dude, trust me."
Nope, been confirmed by Bill Trinen himself if you know where to look, buddy.
"If that's what you're insisting so much, why don't ask the artist themselves and then come back to me?"
You mean what YOU should be doing before going off assuming what the artist's intentions of the art piece is instead of injecting your own perception?
"No denying that, but that doesn't automatically result what obviously looks like male pecs here."
Speaking of perception, while chest binding by itself isn't that effective, Sheik notably wears a body suit under the cloth and we don't know how thick it is. Could be several layers, or one big mesh of a suit. That doesn't lead to male pecs unless it's for a *disguise*, in appearance only.
"And this contour here is clearly not something you see from a woman; that's obviously a man crotch. Compare that to other Sheik drawings where she doesn't have the crotch shaped like it is here. You're saying that I'm basing all of this on "my" perception, yet you are denying what's really evident in this drawing, buddy."
Once again on perception, 1) you're basing your argument on how *you* see anatomy apparently. You see that slope, because of the angle, as a male pelvis. So where's her junk if that's the case? 2) you say "other Sheik drawings" like they aren't draw by *other* people, with *other* styles. Get over it. Sheik is canonically female. Unless the artist says Sheik is male in their art piece, which MANY artist works have done on this site and the Internet, then that's that.
0 Points
Flag
"Dude, trust me."
Nope, been confirmed by Bill Trinen himself if you know where to look, buddy.
"If that's what you're insisting so much, why don't ask the artist themselves and then come back to me?"
You mean what YOU should be doing before going off assuming what the artist's intentions of the art piece is instead of injecting your own perception?
"No denying that, but that doesn't automatically result what obviously looks like male pecs here."
Speaking of perception, while chest binding by itself isn't that effective, Sheik notably wears a body suit under the cloth and we don't know how thick it is. Could be several layers, or one big mesh of a suit. That doesn't lead to male pecs unless it's for a *disguise*, in appearance only.
"And this contour here is clearly not something you see from a woman; that's obviously a man crotch. Compare that to other Sheik drawings where she doesn't have the crotch shaped like it is here. You're saying that I'm basing all of this on "my" perception, yet you are denying what's really evident in this drawing, buddy."
Once again on perception, 1) you're basing your argument on how *you* see anatomy apparently. You see that slope, because of the angle, as a male pelvis. So where's her junk if that's the case? 2) you say "other Sheik drawings" like they aren't draw by *other* people, with *other* styles. Get over it. Sheik is canonically female. Unless the artist says Sheik is male in their art piece, which MANY artist works have done on this site and the Internet, then that's that.
0 Points
Flag
MushMan commented at 2022-11-16 00:07:14 » #2763768
Dude, I know that Sheik is female, and I know what Bill Trinen said, and I really *support* that. I'm talking about what the artist said according to you, which once again you refuse to provide with proper proof of said comment, instead going the "dude, trust me" route, which contributes nothing to your credibility. And seriously, if your are so dead set on insisting with projecting your what is clearly your *own* perception onto me, despite what's *clearly* shown in this drawing, then the one who needs to get over the fact that not all Sheik drawings are what you want them to be is you, buddy.
4 Points
Flag
Dude, I know that Sheik is female, and I know what Bill Trinen said, and I really *support* that. I'm talking about what the artist said according to you, which once again you refuse to provide with proper proof of said comment, instead going the "dude, trust me" route, which contributes nothing to your credibility. And seriously, if your are so dead set on insisting with projecting your what is clearly your *own* perception onto me, despite what's *clearly* shown in this drawing, then the one who needs to get over the fact that not all Sheik drawings are what you want them to be is you, buddy.
4 Points
Flag
1 2