Tryndamere and Pantheon are not built to be sexual objects for females. They are built as strength models for male projection. Most women prefer more moderate muscle.

Women have the mildly deformed Cassieopeia and Soraka, but even those two are beautiful. Meanwhile, Warwick and Mundo are not pretty; and yes, the more extreme monsters like Cho'gath are all male for no apparent reason.

LoL needs more Rugged Garen types.

Kayle is veiled. That makes up for her not being a ****.

Naa Roit has to start with 2 heads, we don't want to alienate the playerbase now do we .

Do you know what would happen if a champion with 2, never the less 9 heads would come out .

Kids would grow up to be become drugdealers/criminals and the world would be ruled by bears .

Silver Kayle got updated, too. :'(

....ideal figure
....shyvannah art work

.....what am i looking at

I'm not 100% sure where I stand on this. This is a fantasy game, so if you take it like that it should not conform to what is considered the norm in real life. Not sure if anyone would want to buy skins of Large(Obese), Fully Clothed Females. Then again in the U.S. anyway, the opposite of norm would be skinny. Which in my opinion the extreme of either is not attractive to me personally. I'm not looking down on woman for being either of those, everyone is beautiful in their own way.

I walk down the street and see woman's breasts hanging out everywhere(Don't get me started on Halloween..) I get annoyed when woman give you a dirty look or say something to you for checking them out. If your going to parade your chest around for everyone to see don't you dare get mad when someone takes the opportunity to look. That is after all why your wearing what your wearing.

I don't like to assume, so let's not assume that most of the people against the revealing females are in fact females. I myself(A Male) would prefer woman to dress fully clothed yet its human nature, just how we are wired. Sort of like how some posts have been about how people want "Hot or Sexy" men with few clothes on. However back to where I was going with this, if you are a female and are posting about how the females should have clothes on and not show any cleavage I have a question. Your saying you have never shown some skin? Never a glimpse of cleavage? Short shorts or a mini skirt? If you have what was your reason for wearing it? The answer is to look more attractive to the opposite ***. Everyone wouldn't mine a second look from someone you are walking past, or a compliment on how beautiful you look.

Riot makes skins to give champions a different look, that is really the only reason to buying a skin. So if they don't look "Good" to societies current standards then no-one is going to buy them. Riot has to add that WOW factor, the second glance, or beautiful image to the skins in order to sell them. Yes this can be accomplished in other ways besides lack of clothing. I myself really like the detail that can be put into a champions Armour to really make it shine, and I would like to see more of this.

An idea would be for champions default skin to be "Fully Clothed" with more attention on facial features and armor design. Then the Skins can be lacking in clothing or however you wish to get them sold. This way people never have to play with a champ they find offensive. New Champions sell themselves and don't need the lack of clothing because well, they are new, have new skills, everyone wants to try it.

Well I just wanted to give my opinion on the subject. Thanks for reading

Typ3

One thing that i have wondered is if riot will ever release skins for champions that aren't really based on the original art of the champion. That would include but not be limited to alternate genders / completely different body styles/armor etc. Is that ever on the table or not?

You imply their is something bad about s e x or male s e x uality. Why limit what is most certainly not bad. S e xual selection is a good thing that has given humanity remarkable resistance to parasites, fertility, and erotic art. S e xual selection however is remarkably competitive far more so then any computer game and peoples feelings get hurt so threads like this are made. Both s e x e s want to be able to put out no effort at make no barely palatable compromises all...... and still get the person of their dreams. Not going to happen.

Men will always A-- have to do or say things they do not beleve in

B-- learn hypnotism or NLP

C-- Limit thier perfered mating habits in order to have a mate at all

D play lots of computer games and try look at lots of e r o t ca and forget out competing for women

E--- Dodge or neutralize the intimidating moves of men larger or of higher social then themselfs, who will ALWAYS be competing for a women worth ones time.

and in all cases --- fork over lots of money or time spent appearing to have a "glowing personality" In order to have gratifying moments of female induced pleasure

Women will always have to

A-- Look pretty enough

B-- Maintain a pleasant willingness to help and try to hide the most toxic of thier emotions away in the early phases of a relationship to avoid scaring a guy off or better get dealing "internal demons" before they start looking for a man.

C-- Be sexually available more often then their biological comfort zone tends to make them naturally
and be willing to do the occasional thing they think is a bit gross or weird in order to keep men interested. (Because truth to be told men find the vast majority of female sexual fantasy to be so crushingly boring)

D-- Take some physical risk and emotional risks beyond their comfort zone. (Men have to enter the win/lose world earlier then women do and so accept physical risk much more ready as a cost of doing business or getting things done but women often need to push themselves and be mentally focused more to take the kinds of risks men are simply expected to take as a matter of course.

When humans removed most scarcity from daley life, the one thing that remained scarse were the number of mates that one would choose free of the need to compromise on something. Either play the game or find something else to occupy your time. Whining about objectification or the odd logic women use to select mates or rather the odd way of speaking successful men employ to get women in the absence of wealth. None the less both s e x e s annoy each other but if loneliness is something you can no longer stand then their are some hard compromises and choices to be made.

Arguments like the original posters tend to make people feel in their bones that somebody somewhere down the line is trying to get something for nothing. People hate that feeling because its typically a reliable warning bell even if the type of hokum cannot be properly identified underneath all the layers of rhetoric, outright lies, and murky psychological motivations. The reason threads like this arouse such strong emotions is both sides feel the other is trying to get or hold on to something for nothing in an area of life where scarisity is still a defining trait of looking for s e x or love or a bit of both in proportions that are acceptable.