Hollywood Has a Boob Armor Problem, and It Needs to Stop

Hollywood Has a Boob Armor Problem, and It Needs to Stop

image

A discussion that started since Wasp’s boobtastic costume got revealed in the Ant Man movie got rekindled once new photos from the upcoming sequel started popping up.

Significant quote from the article, a response to something us female costume design critics are often accused of:

To be clear, this isn’t a call for modesty. This is a call for Hollywood to have more realistic depictions of female warriors. and more creativity in their designs. 

While it’s hard to advocate for the barbarian warrior heroic nudity in media like PG13 movies, modesty of a costume is hardly ever an issue for us (well, maybe unless it directly contradicts a specific character’s modest personality). That’s why the Female Armor Rhetoric Bingo has a "You want every woman to be covered from head to toe!” square.

As usual, though, I strongly disagree with assertion (in the latter part of the text) that movie!Wonder Woman’s armor is a good middle ground between practicality and aesthetic. Again, neither having vaguely historical references nor looking better than Amazon bikinis from the Justice League film make it an objectively good design, especially when you put Diana next to her male peers

Also, throwing Lady Sif and Valkyrie under the bus, when at worst their costumes are exactly as bad as Wondy’s and the Amazons’? Someone seems to write with DC-favoring bias >.> 

For more comprehensive commentary about the whole spectrum between genuinely practical female armor and unrealistic, but feminine and aesthetically pleasing armor, I recommend reading the Skin Is Not Necessary for Sex Appeal article we reblogged before.

~Ozzie 

h/t: @filipfatalattractionrblog

The Amazons’ New Clothes – The Golden Lasso

The Amazons’ New Clothes – The Golden Lasso

image

SamBeringer submitted: 

Zack Snyder took one look at the boobplate in Wonder Woman and went “hold my beer.” Christ, this is awful.

Worst part? Here’s something the article above points out:

Wonder Woman began filming in 2015, the year before Justice League started filming in 2016. The Amazons’  design was finalized and most of the costumes completed while Justice League was still in pre-production. That means that there were discussions about what the Amazons should wear into battle in Justice League and the epic designs from Wonder Woman were rejected in favor of leather bikinis. Let that sink in. They rejected already finished costumes to redesign and remake the armor so that more skin would be showing.” 

Thanks to all readers who sent this our way! 

This makes me angry on a visceral level. We covered the problems with the costumes and the way the were pitched in the Wonder Woman movie, but this is twice as bad with none of hat tips toward real historical armor.  This has all those problems and then some. And is, frankly, just generic bikini armor trash.

As the article points out, the Justice League movie has an essentially all male executive team as well as a male costumer.  There’s presumably also a Creepy Marketing Guy (or even a small army of them, seeing as this is a DC/Warner Bros production). 

No matter who to blame, this is just self-demonstrably shameful.

~Ozzie

See also: Buzzfeed’s take on the same topic (ht: @itsgoodtobeming)


What’s really baffling about this is that Zack Snyder and same costumer, Michael Wilkinson, did manage to create a fairly decent (fantastic by comparison, but certainly not without it’s faults) female costume design in Man of Steel, as worn by the glorious Faora-Ul:

image

Most of the high end production staff from Justice League also contributed on Wonder Woman.  So that leaves us with several equally terrible possibilities:

  • Someone with executive power literally saw the early sections of Wonder Woman and decided that what it needed was more women’s body on display so asked for “sexy versions of that”
  • The executive(s) in charge have been starting with “playing it safe” to build hype on the initial movies, and now have concluded that since those were a success they can throw female characters and fans under the bus in favor of their own puerile fantasies
  • Warner Bros or some other executive power only allowed the Wonder Woman amazon armor to be as not-terrible-as-possible because they assumed it would be a limited interest movie and not the highest grossing Superhero Origin Story at the time of it’s release. (which would explain this comic)

You may notice a theme of this being an executive with very poor judgement, and as much as a suspect otherwise I really hope it’s NOT Zack Snyder.  Because if it is, this does not bode well for the future:

image

– wincenworks

10 Stupid Arguments People Use To Defend Comic Book Sexism

10 Stupid Arguments People Use To Defend Comic Book Sexism

bikiniarmorbattledamage:

An article from 2014 that is no less relevant today. Not surprisingly, all the arguments listed have their place on the Female Armor Rhetoric Bingo.

Here’s one of the summarizing paragraphs of the list which I find most important:

If people only “lose their minds” when the comics industry objectifies women or ignores its female audience, that’s because it’s not happening the other way around. Male readers are not being ignored, and female readers are not being pandered to at the cost of men’s dignity.

~Ozzie

more debunking of pro-sexualization rhetoric on BABD  

Given that there’s currently an issue with an editor at Marvel being harassed for existing posting a selfie with coworkers, it’s probably a good time to bring back this core point that there’s a demographic that’s definitely intent on trying to keep women (among others) out of the mediums like comics or games.

And on the topic of these despicable individuals blaming women (and diversity in general) for Marvel’s reduced sales, there’s also an a great thread by Kurt Busiek talking about how comic’s decline can be linked to the industry actively focusing on only the straight white cis male demographic.

– wincenworks

Doobie Doobie Doo-Wop: “Why do you hate the shape of breasts in plate armor so much?”

Doobie Doobie Doo-Wop: “Why do you hate the shape of breasts in plate armor so much?”

martwhim:

Since people often ask “Alright, well this is fantasy!  Why can’t we have boob shapes in plate armor?!”  I decided to make a post about it.  My frustration hasnothing to do with historical inaccuracy and I’m all for imagination and freedom— but I’d like to (very quickly) illustrate this for you:

image

I purposely over-emphasized the shape of the two spheres in the armor so you can really think about this. 

Look at the shape of the blue cups and the green line, think about the form of that on some beautiful ornate plate armor.  A female warrior is charging into battle.  In the midst of this, she trips!  Or is pushed over, or takes a blow to the chest!  So long as the force is on the front of her torso it really doesn’t matter for the conclusion:

She feels a sharp pain in her chest and hears the cracking of bone!  Oh no, what’s gone wrong?  Well she doesn’t have time to think about that, because she is now dead.

Her sternum just fractured, take another look at that green line, that’s where all of the pressure from any front impact is going to go because of the shape of the two blue cups made for her breasts.  The rest of the armor slides around your body, but because of the two cups for breasts that are often made in fantasy female armors, the pressure point is directly on the sternum.  The breasts are not going to stop the force of you falling onto them, and because of that the metal is going to push in and bash you in the sternum.

image

What does a fractured sternum do?  Why it goes right into your heart and lungs of course.

(that was the sound of all of my followers inhaling a sharp breath between closed teeth at once)

Here are three great solutions to the problem:

image

image

GREAT EXAMPLE OF FANTASY TORSO ARMOR THAT IS FEMININE BUT FUNCTIONAL:

image

It is usually possible to bind the breasts when fighting if they really are far too large to fit into regular looking armor (there’s padding anyway), but most women can actually fit into a similarly sized male counterpart’s armor quite easily.  Even if that’s the case, the armor can be made to have a curve to it without putting all of the pressure in one area, which was actually a style of armor for quite some time as shown here:

image

And don’t even get me started on the dreaded “Cleavage Window”

The “Cleavage Window” defeats the purpose of having any armor on your torso because it means you’re just going to be leaving open the vital organs the rest of the armor is trying to protect.

If people are going to protect themselves and not have much torso protection, invest in some blocking lessons, because the best defense is to not get hit at all.  There are also advantages to not having plate armor, and plate armor was often really expensive anyway.

— Edit —

image

supaslim replied to your post“Why do you hate the shape of breasts in plate armor so much?”

I’d also like to add that boob bulges direct blows straight to the sternum as well, rather than making them glance to either side. Good post.

This week’s throwback: one of the very first posts I reblogged and a big inspiration for BABD even existing. It is THE Boobplate Post – one with the most comprehensive explanations why semi-spherical individual compartments for each boob in armor are an awful, awful idea. 

To reiterate briefly, boobplate:

  • is uncomfortable
  • doesn’t provide breast support that actual bras/corsets do
  • ignores how many silhouette-changing layers of padding go underneath plate armor
  • directs blows to the wearer’s heart (a.k.a. guarantees painful death instead of preventing it)

~Ozzie

see other good articles about impracticality of boobplate: here, here, here. here and here

h/t: @whydontyouhateithere who recently asked about boobplates

The New Star Wars Game Stars a Woman and Whiny Pissboys Got Triggered

The New Star Wars Game Stars a Woman and Whiny Pissboys Got Triggered

Settling for the next best thing.

As a blog focused on criticism, there’s something we come across regularly in responses to our writing – insistence that we’re “never happy” no matter how much better a particular example is than most media we feature on BABD. 

Readers (though mostly detractors) question why we can’t qualify something (mostly games) as 100% positive example if it does one thing better than the rest in its medium/genre/etc. 

Examples: 

It’s quite disheartening to have the audience insist that we should settle for media to be tiny bit better than mediocre and call it a day. That a game or its creator not being as bad as they could deserve to be awarded and held up as an example for the rest of the industry. 

image

We refuse to set our standards so low that “her battle costume isn’t a literal bikini” or “has characters who are female in it” or “shows a male butt/chest sometimes” qualify a title as good, equal gender representation with no room for improvement. 

Being better than a random asset-flipping game with stolen artwork in their web ads isn’t hard. Being better than your last project and learning from its mistakes should be a given. Simply not making asinine excuses for poor representation shouldn’t be applauded. 
No-one is asking for perfection, but all creators should be held accountable for the product they’re selling, with its good and bad sides.

Popular media, especially video games, has a huge problem with fan backlash against lesser-than excellent reviews scores*. And this is not much different – expecting negatives not to be acknowledged because positives exist. 

BABD in particular, instead of doing comprehensive reviews, is focused on female costume and character design compared to male ones. Yet even such specific topic can’t be talked about from both angles without someone decrying unfairness.
Does it really say more about us being negative and cynical or the fans being entitled and blind to any challenging point of view?

~Ozzie 

*The link leads to a satirical @pointandclickbait article, but the satire is not really all that exaggerated. Yes, really.

queerrussetpotato:

newvagabond:

opalescentnanomachines:

So I have this theory, after hearing a lot about false equivalence coming up in discussions about female portrayal in comic books. Every time women talk about being sexually objectified, there’s always at least one dude who shows up to whine “BUT MENZ ARE OBJECTIFIED TOO, LOOK HOW UNREALISTICALLY MUSCLEY THEY ARE!” Attempting to point out the difference between a power fantasy and a sexual fantasy – to say nothing of pointing out that both fantasies are portrayed by men, for men – is typically useless. The two are firmly conflated and no amount of actual logic will penetrate.

I figure it all ties back into some of same concepts that underwrite “fake” geek girls, friendzoning, rape apology, and other things of that ilk: namely, that men think the sexual fantasy is a power fantasy.

When creating a powerful woman, men seem to have this automatic jump to making said powerful woman a sex object, because they truly think sexiness is powerful. For them, that’s what female power is: power over men. This is behind all the guys howling that sexy geek girl cosplayers are “preying” on male nerds; this is behind all the men who say women deserve rape for what they wear; this is behind all those “friendzoned” guys who insist they can’t possibly break off the “friendship” themselves because they’re helpless before the objects of their affection. It allows them to disclaim their actions as coerced, shunt away responsibility, and blame women when things don’t go as they like. They “couldn’t resist” the power of attraction.

In comics, men both don’t understand that their male power fantasies aren’t sexy for women (horrendously muscled, bodybuilder physique is NOT typically a sexual ideal), and don’t understand why women don’t derive power fantasy from the sex appeal of the female heroes. “Look,” they’re saying, “you are portrayed as powerful, and men are portrayed as sexy!” This also slots in with the idea that women are only in anything ever because of men – that their desire to attract men is one of the principal driving forces of their existence. That, therefore, the power to attract men should be important to them in a “strong” female character.

I’ve thought about this too much today and it’s goddamn depressing. It’s the same bullshit which says a woman’s only power, her only worth, is in her physical attractiveness, that women are only powerful in relation to men. I don’t really think I can safely contemplate it more right now.

Guh. Need kittens.

MOAR.

(New ILU)

Sorry to reblog myself but okay there’s more. I had to go back to work after I posted this earlier and there’s nothing to do at work but think (monotonous job is monotonous) and even though it’s depressing I couldn’t think about anything else once I got started. /storyofmylife

So inherent in all of the above is the basic concept that men are sexy because they are powerful, and women are powerful because they are sexy. This is predicated on the notion that men have power stemming from something about them as people, whereas women have power stemming from how much they deserve the attention of men. Men not only provide power to women, but they do so by losing power themselves. You guys, maybe this is why men think power is a zero sum game: because they think that women only have power when they are overpowering men with their sexy sexiness.

Fake geek girls, specifically, have an element of dominance issue to them. Look at those hot girls, swanning into fandom, taking away not only attention and material goods (limited fandom resources, such as collector’s editions and etc., has been discussed elsewhere) but also stealing their very wills from them. Better put those girls in their place, because otherwise they’ll be the ones with the power, on account of they have mammaries, and unlike those chicks in comic books they’re not safe paper-and-ink mammaries created solely to be ogled!

Also, since this is all about false equivalence, may I go on a tangent here and talk about realism? Because comics, at least American comics, portray physical dimensions/characteristics for men that are outrageous and close to impossible. Professional bodybuilders can do it but it looks freaking unnatural. No reasonable person expects all men to actually go out and try to become that. However, the way women look in comics is still the way most men, including many who consider themselves quite reasonable, expect women to look. Male superheroes are escapism for men, so they can be as unrealistic as they need to be; female superheroes are also escapism for men, so there’s a limit on how unrealistic they can be. Although niches exist for all kinds of physical-dimension fetishes, women in comics are idealizations of what the men reading/writing those comics would want to have sex with, and so they’re kept pretty close to society’s ideal beauty standards (which, while unrealistic also, are not considered to be such by most men). Let me put it this way: a drawing of a crowded street in which you replace all the men with bodybuilders would look bizarre and ridiculous; a drawing of a crowded street in which you replace all the women with models or even well-dressed porn stars wouldn’t make most people bat an eye, except maybe to wonder what city it is or to make appreciative comments. Women are supposed to look like that, says society. Not just a few, exceptional women – all women, at least if they want to be worth anything.

The above paragraph exists to punctuate this point: when women complain about how they’re drawn in comics, it’s not about realism. The body dimensions of male superheroes are metaphorical representations of their power over whatever they’re up against, whereas the body dimensions of female superheroes are meant to be literal depictions of their power over men.

IDK. This post has wiped me out today and I think I’m done with saddening feminist musings for a little while. Still need kittens and now possibly also schnapps.

Can’t believe I discovered this post just now. It was literally written before I started this blog! 

What a nice writeup on false equivalence! Puts the subject of power politics in portrayals of gender we discussed here more eloquently than I ever managed. Possibly my favorite part is: 

“So inherent in all of the above is the basic concept that men are sexy because they are powerful, and women are powerful because they are sexy. This is predicated on the notion that men have power stemming from something about them as people, whereas women have power stemming from how much they deserve the attention of men.”

~Ozzie

ht: @snarktheater

more about false equivalence on BABD

But is it really porn?

So now and again we get people insist that x title shouldn’t be counted because it’s intended to be viewed as porn (especially if that product is from a country outside the English speaking world… because reasons).

Reasons for this assumption often include:

  • The presence of explicit fan service or sex scenes
  • The inclusion of ridiculous double standards
  • Fans having labelled it as an erotic product on their own wikis
  • The publisher having actual porn products in their catalog

But generally this just assumes that by shoehorning in some sexualized content a product immediately becomes excluded from criticism.  Very few products exclude all content from their own genre (plenty of action movies have a romantic subplot for example).

image

Generally a lot of the cross genre trends have a pretty basic premise behind them, it helps improve the audience investment:

  • Comic relief in horror and thriller helps avoid the audience becoming desensitized or burnt out from the tension
  • Having a love interest can humanize a protagonist (or an antagonist) and increase your ability to get invested in them
  • Mixing a little mystery with your modern fantasy story reminds the audience of how little we really notice or know about the world around us and makes them more accepting to the idea of secret magic

So, what purpose does having ultrasexualized costumes for female characters and regular arbitrary fan service?  Well, mostly it’s because of the general belief that certain demographics need a lot of reassurance that some products are okay for them, and in fact made exclusively for them:

image

It’s been covered before, but I really feel the need to restate that the main reason for this is a very simple reasoning: x genre is a for (straight cis) men so we need to market exclusively to them and make sure they know we’re doing it (even if they think it’s already being overdone and kind of insulting).

(Evidence suggests this works… but only in the sense that it does make a lot of people think that the product is not for them and hence don’t buy it. Or just have more fun mocking it than they’d have playing it.)

image

That’s not to say that there aren’t products or stories where including sexual content gives it a boost, but generally you’ll want to do it in a way that makes sense and does actually improve the product and that still doesn’t make it porn.

You can physically eat a lot of things, but just as you wouldn’t call it food unless you buy it specifically to eat it, you shouldn’t call it porn unless you buy it specifically for sexual gratification.

– wincenworks

Modesty

bikiniarmorbattledamage:

kristaferanka:

So yesterday, Kelly Thompson released an article for She Has No Head! where she discusses 6 recent Female Superhero costume designs that she feels are an improvement of what came prior.

Amongst the designs that were chosen was my Psylocke design, which is in the company of artists like Meredith McClaren, Ross Campbell, Mark Brooks, Jamie McKelvie, Phil Noto, and Jesus Siaz. Not a bad group of artists to be grouped with, if I do say so myself.

Basically the gist of the article was about costumes should be designed by artists who also know fashion and design, rather than just pencilers who will have to be drawing that character for their book, and how when the right person is tasked to design the costume that it will have a far better outcome. She went through and chose characters who she felt needed the update, and talked about how the redesign was an improvement. 

Characters like Psylocke, Glory, Poison Ivy, Ms Marvel, Jubilee, Valkyrie, and Domino. 

And as anything involving comics, hatred quickly followed the heels of this article. what else would you expect, right?

But within the comments, a few points were being brought up that puzzled me that I sort of wanted to address, Instead of my initial reaction which was to get into a comment war. Thankfully, that was a path I didn’t go down because I had things I needed to do with my day and I couldn’t waste it in what would undoubtedly become an insult match.

One of the ideas that kept coming up was the notion that there is a trend in current female costume designs that the designer must pander to screaming feminists by covering the character from head to toe and take away all of the characters sexiness and by result make them boring. 

Now I’ll be honest, I don’t like being yelled at by feminists. But I also don’t like to be yelled at by womanizers, or kids, or anyone. So I want to just rule that out as a motivation. No one wants to get yelled at. 

Secondly, sexiness is subjective. A character can still be considered “sexy” even if it doesn’t fit with your tastes. To say that by giving a Female character a piece of fabric to cover her ass cheeks up is ruining her sexiness, ALL that means is that YOU think that an exposed ass is sexy. There is absolutely no way to make a blanket statement about that. Some people think a baggy shirt on a girl is equally as attractive as an uber skin tight shirt.

Sexiness has NEVER been a factor when I design a character. Sex appeal ONLY comes into play when the characters PERSONALITY dictates that as a factor.

The CHARACTER must be first and foremost the inspiration and guideline for all the decisions made when trying to design the clothing. NOT what you want to see on a characters to get your rocks off. I find that frankly immature, and an insult to the character you are trying to do justice to. 

Granted, what is “correct” by the character is also incredibly subjective. Everyone see’s a character differently. This is Fact. This is the exact reason that everyone has different favourite characters, we each see something different that attracts us to them. The best a designer can hope for is that their interpretation can ideally appeal to the largest majority possible of that characters fan-base. No one wants to have a design that fans hate, but you can’t please everyone. 

And just to speak for myself, modesty was never a factor. I never approached storm’s, or psylocke’s, or spiral’s design with the sole intention of hiding their skin. The amount of real estate that ended up being covered or not was ENTIRELY dictated by my attempt to respect the character. There was no “psylocke has to be fully covered because it would be indecent for any of her skin to be showing”. I wanted to have her covered because I felt that a character who is performing stealth assassinations would want as little wound-able flesh showing. 

My go-to example of a character that should be showing skin is, of course, Emma Frost. Here is a character who prides herself on her looks. She is an incredibly confident character mentally, and likes to show off herself physically. Emma Frost flaunting it works because it works for HER. She likes control, she likes power, and one of the best tools for that is her body. She can turn heads with her body, she can command attention with it. She wouldn’t even need to use her telepathy to have someone lose focus. Emma Frost is incredibly intelligent, she knows what she is doing. There has to be a REASON for the skin. 

Even with male characters. Namor doesn’t need to cover up anything because he is indestructible. Armour would give him no benefit, and would probably hinder him. In fact, having Namor show off skin actually helps to tell a lot about him as a character. It shows his confidence, it shows he isn’t afraid to be attacked, and it largely makes sense given he lives in water. 

Colossus doesn’t need full covering, because all he has to do is become metal, and he has his own protection. 

There has to be a REASON.

To what tactical function would a spy need her cleavage hanging out? Does it help a character who is an acrobat?

There is nothing inherently wrong with cleavage, but it needs to be based on either the characters personality or by what they do. I cannot stress this enough. It cannot just be cause the artist felt like drawing a zipper down. 

Fan-Service is no longer a logical reason to do anything. The Story should be the Fan-service by being a good story and doing the character justice, and the art should support that. 

And, an Artist’s tastes are an entirely defendable reason for something, but dont try to pass it off as anything else. You can argue that it makes sense for psylocke to wear less clothing because she wants less covering her to hinder her mobility, and that does hold some water to it. It does make sense to a point. But to say the stripes of clothe on her serve any other function that just for appearance sake is laughable. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong about just saying something is drawn that way because thats what the artist likes. I do it all the time. There are things that I draw a certain way, that Ross draws a certain way, that Mark draws a certain way. It’s one of the weird double-edged swords about comics, but a lot of the audiences participation with the comic is determined by the artist and their tastes. It’s just one of those things where the artist holds a lot of power in their hands, and as such, there is a level of accountability that the artist owes the readers, but the readers arguments must come from a place of logic, rather than just “You ruined her because I want to see more tits!!”. No one has time for that

Covering characters works. Uncovering characters work. The character determines what will or will not work. There is no mandate. There are no threats. At least there weren’t for me when I designed X-force. I had incredible freedom to design as how I saw fit. As I assume how it went for the other artists that designed the marvel costumes. 

I find it funny that out of the 6 costumes in that article, 5 were designed by guys. I think that just goes to show that there isn’t this gender mental block that makes men unable to design practical costumes for the opposite gender.

Anyone can design any costume for any gender as long as they approach it with with respect and understanding. 

And thats my rant on that haha

Excellent commentary about priorities and goals in character design.

It’s baffling to me how some creators can spend time pondering over the exact history of a character, or how to compose a shot to homage to a classic work, then turn around and decide that it is VITAL that a female character has to be as sexy as possible even if it goes against all other aspects of her and her story.

I mean really, I would think the way they dress would be considered far more important an aspect about the character’s expression than the occasional line they drop about what school they went to.

– wincenworks

Took the liberty of bolding the most relevant parts for emphasis (and to break down the great wall of text that this article is).

~Ozzie

As a followup to the article about X-23′s newest costume, it’s time we brought back this comprehensive post explaining how superhero costumes have to be designed with a character-driven purpose* in mind. And sex fanservice sells” is no such purpose. 

~Ozzie

*which is not the same as “character totally personally would choose to dress like that~!”

All-New Wolverine Continues Into ResurrXion With New Costume, Artist

All-New Wolverine Continues Into ResurrXion With New Costume, Artist

“It all comes down to the amount of times Laura is hurt, or taken out of action. Just because she has a healing factor, doesn’t mean she enjoys pain, or bullets ripping through her internal organs. She has had her issues with pain before, and she’s moving through this. This suit is designed to be bulletproof and generally more protective.

image

Another step in X-23′s costume evolution is definitely appreciated, as the creators openly address that even such awesome power as healing factor is not a good excuse for an action hero to run around with deep cleavage and/or bared belly.

Also good to see Laura get some individual touches in her Wolverine-like costume. Personally, I was never sold on replicating Logan’s yellow-blue color scheme verbatim for her. 

~Ozzie

ht: @filipfatalattractionrblog