We’re not suggesting any GM should allow these feats into a campaign. In fact, we advise against it. Seriously, the whole product is called “Horrifically Overpowered Feats,” which seemed like a dead giveaway that we’re not encouraging anyone to use these rules.
This cover is up there with Macho Women With Guns and Special Forces as something supposedly parodying sexist depictions of warrior women media by pretty unironically reproducing such depictions.
As if that wasn’t enough, twin-bulged breastplates ignore the anatomical makeup of the female breast itself. To make a long story short, the breast largely consists of fat and modified sweat glands (for the production of milk, that is), and hence it’s not nearly as solid as a comparable mass of muscle. So all but the largest breasts can be bound quite flat against the woman’s chest without occasioning too much discomfort. In turn, this means a fighting woman probably isn’t going to need a breastplate with a chest profile larger than one worn by a fighting man of a similar height and general body shape, and therefore it’s quite likely that the woman would simply fit into the man’s breastplate with the aid of some padding to make up the slack in the waist and shoulders.
If you actually know that and still decided that boobsocks or boobplate on a breasted character is a good idea, maybe consider it’s cause you wanna see The Tiddy? And then consider, where are all the codpieces that really existed that you could be drawing instead?
Hey you… yeah you, the one typing the comment about how a guy on YouTube told you the shape of armor is just an “aesthetic” and hence boobplates would be fine because “hardened steel is really hard”.
Don’t take advice from a guy who only assess armor based off what it feels like to swing one of his wooden swords and not on the distinct likelihood of the wearer being hit by a sharp stick wielded by a person on top of a one ton warhorse charging at full gallop.
Yes, that the first tweet refers to notes under this very post. Have fun reading those, but be warned of the headache-inducing lack of self-awareness on the part of Toxic Masculinity Brigade (aka WH40k fandom).
Agreed 100% I was always hesitant to use the term “fanservice” for what is clearly just perv pandering. Because as I learned it first, it meant exactly what the name implies – rewarding fans with a creator’s nod; pleasing the audience.
References to continuity, cameos of beloved characters, canonizing popular ships – those are examples of fan service. Gratuitous sexualization of female characters isn’t really that. That’s just erotica, plain and simple. Let’s not imply that wanking to a skimpily-clad fictional heroine requires being her fan first.
Self–Censorship – entertaining the idea of adding gratuitous female boobs and butts but ultimately deciding not to because you just got a better idea.
Submitting to Harassment – Starting to add gratuitous female boobs and butts but, upon reading arguments against it in discussion topics on forums and message boards, deciding that you see where they’re coming from and you hadn’t thought of that before, so you decide to tone the boobs down a notch with a minor edit that in some cases is only noticeable in side by side comparisons.
Artist’s Wishes – This tiddy must be preserved in all its glory despite the fact that the artist wished to remove the tiddy.
(Before we continue – for the benefit of those about to frantically type a comment – the artwork is very much on brand for the artist, and would even be very suitable in an explicitly erotic game or just as softcore erotic art. The problem isn’t the art itself, it’s that it’s for a game about mechs vs kaiju)
This art was used heavily in a “buy now” promotion a few days prior to releasing the first playable demo* of the game that’s been in development for three years.
It’s probably good that the majority of people who like this art like it as a pinup and not as a promise of content to be in the game then.
If the most interesting thing about your game is a thing that isn’t central to the game or in even in it… a giant stop sign, clearly your game is going wrong. I mean at the very least, stop asking people to hand over their money for a product that’s guaranteed to disappoint. ***
This is of course, the most extreme example – but it’s probably something to consider the next time you see a game promoting itself with bizarrely incongruent sexual imagery, big promises and little substance.
* Playable in the absolute vaguest sense possible – there’s only movement mechanics so it’s not even an alpha release. Incidentally, from the second indiegogo (the first one was just for the site):
(Due to Mark’s forementioned affiliations – it is safe to say that a lot of these backers lost their shit at @femfreq for extending their deadline due to unforeseen support… I wonder what the difference could be…)
Okay, see now what I don’t get is people who say they love Babs’ redesign because “finally a practical female costume in comics!!”
Because it’s absolutely true that impractical costumes are a problem that plague superheroines, but this is what Babs’ New 52 costume looked like before they redesigned it:
I’m purposefully using a picture that has her next to Batman – her costume was just as “practical” as his. Full body suit, sturdy-looking flat-heeled boots, no unnecessary details beyond the Bat symbol and cape (both of which Batman has too) – what exactly was so “impractical” about this?
For that matter, this is what Babs’ original Batgirl costume looked like:
That’s from the 1970’s, and her costume looks as practical as can be. Actually, I’d argue that Dick’s the one with the impractical costume, here.
So why are we acting like this is such a big deal that Babs “finally” has a practical costume?! She’s had one since practically the very beginning (once they stopped drawing her original costume with high heels, anyway).
Superheroine costumes are certainly lacking practicality on the whole, but Babs was never really an issue there. So giving her a practical redesign doesn’t really do anything to change the status quo – it just “fixes” what wasn’t broken to start with. Why not give Starfire a redesign where I don’t have to wonder how her top stays on, instead?
Also they made a huge deal about her new costume not being spandex, but I thought the whole batfam wore kevlar.
It’s not, it was never identified by name, but it’s apparently some sort of next gen bulletproof material, even BETTER than kevlar.
why they would choose to replace that with a cheap $20 leather jacket is beyond me
I don’t think anyone argued Barbara’s current costume was specifically one in a desperate need of redesign (let’s face it, she’s always been the one DC superheroine with consistently full body-covering suit: no cleavage, no 5-inch heels, not even bared midriff).
Her new costume is a breath of fresh air compared to the DC/Marvel female design STANDARDS, not compared to what she wore before.
But as far as the kevlar (or rather “batkevlar”) argument goes, it doesn’t really hold ground when the artist’s attempts at conveying her suit to be armor are so half-assed and inconsistent that the chest piece looks either painted on or too small to wear, let alone breathe in (see: middle images here).
Does it make sense that after losing her old costume she assembles a new, cheap one, instead of asking Bruce to give her another armor? Yeah, probably not. Especially since she’s a regular human, not a superpowered alien or an Amazon or a magic user that can wear even a skimpy costume without caring for consequences. But that’s the issue of pulling it off with writing, no different than pulling of the existence of miraculous better-than-kevlar material.
For what it’s supposed to be, the new costume is designed awesomely.
Since by now it’s confirmed that we are all trapped in Keanu fever, including his John Wick title – it’s probably a good time talk about super-fabrics like batkevlar and how they tend to be presented differently on men and women. Above we have how it tends to be presented for women: an excuse to always have them in sexy spandex that is vacuum sealed for freshness.
In John Wick 2, the titular character stops to obtain an outfit made entirely out of a remarkably similar fabric – bulletproof beyond anything real technology can do but not enough to stop bruising damage from the impact. How does his outfit look when he’s fully protected?
And yes, there are male characters who are known for wearing spandex type outfits, but you know what all of them get without a fuss? Alternative costumes.
Batman has gone through more designs than one can count, the Snake family from Metal Gear get everything from standard BDUs to tuxedos, Sam Fisher’s gear was always tailored to be not too body clingy and got to do a whole game in civvies with a bullet vest.
My point is: If your fictional world is developing wonder technology to prevent battle damage – the first and foremost application of it should not be for women to wear body hugging outfits (that then get torn and don’t stop all the damage anyway) – but probably to augment existing combat outfits.
You should probably also consider the “rules” of it – and whether someone would prioritize showing off their body over not being covered in bruises all day every day – because bruises are not fun and you probably want your characters to display at least vaguely relate able judgement. Let them get hurt but, don’t make it an hourly thing they could easily avoid.
Sometimes when I’m watching a review for a Marvel movie and they start talking about how hot the female lead is, I briefly think “Seriously? Gross pigs”. But then I take a look at my desktop and see screen caps of almost all of Chris Evans’ ass shots from his Marvel movies, and I realize I have absolutely no right to judge. I am no better. That’s not to say nobody else has the right to judge, because they do. Just putting it into perspective so both sides can understand one another better.
Not really. Who even cares about objectifying Steve Rogers when he gets 3 of his very own movies and there isn’t even a SINGLE movie for ANY female character. Who cares about women on tumblr objectifying him prettyyyy much harmlessly when entertainment shows/sites seen by millions gush about Steve’s character development or Chris’ acting, while the only thing they say about the SOLE woman is her new hair/her weight loss or gain/how hot she looked. Sometimes, women are ONLY put in movies to be the token “eye candy”, (regardless of whether or not she’s underage) and this happens a lot. Look at the massive franchise that is Transformers.
It’s not the same thing… Men objectify women and it leads to real life violence against women—fuelled by already rampant misogyny. Women objectify men and it leads to gifsets of Chris Evans’ ass.
Yuppppp And no one respects sexy men less for being “objectified” if you can even apply the term the same way to a guy- if anything, being objectified is glorifying for men.
What’s that thing Joe Mangianello said about how he doesn’t feel like men can be objectified? Cuz women are viewed as sex objects, but men are viewed as power objects?
A guy who takes off his shirt and shows off his buff bod in a movie has power, he’s displaying his value and attractiveness
I mean, the culture isn’t NEARLY the same; I’ve been thinking lately about how no matter how much we “objectify” men, it’s always an empowering thing for the man.
He’s sexy: it’s an achievement.
And a lot of our attraction is also about fawning over the man’s personality, his expressions, the nuances of the character he plays- cute jokes about Doritoes….
I can go from posting ten close-ups of Chris Evan’s ass (accompanied by praise and self-deprecating jokes) To a picture of him in a sweater-vest, looking pensive and talking about his love of golden retrievers in the same ten minutes (with commentary about what a darling angel he is)
None of it is demeaning or objectifying in remotely the way female objectification is, and your point about Chris Evans starring in three Cap solo movies is really right on…. …while women can barely scrape past the damn Bechdel test half the time, and half the time are reduced to T&A and get assaulted or fridged or show up in their undies for no reason…
Some wise words about gendered double standards and false equivalence between objectifying male and female characters.