commentary – Page 69 – Bikini Armor Battle Damage

May 31, 2015

Concerning my previous ask: I think it’s time we stop beating around the bush and ask the real question that has been looming. What makes a guy sexy to women? What is the “t ‘n’ a” of men? What makes Conan different from Jacob from Twilight?

Well we do have a tag… but okay. (This was the previous ask)

Well, the most obvious differences between Conan and Jacob is that Conan was what his creator, Robert E Howard (who struggled his entire life with the pressures of society and toxic masculinity) not-secretly-at-all yearned to be and Jacob is the Stephanie Meyer’s idea of semi-exotic potential boyfriend. Check out this classic depiction of Conan by Frank Frazetta and try to remember the last time you saw a guy like this on the cover of a romance novel.

What makes guys sexy to women (physically)?

Well, it turns out since women are not a monolith and women don’t get to dictate beauty standards for men there’s no real standard.

Research has shown that men in general overestimate how much muscle women find attractive. They also tend to overestimate the importance and the preferred size of penises. (Seriously guys, don’t send unsolicited dick pics and don’t expect bragging about ridiculous endowment to help you)

Honestly though, the notion that you have to adhere to beauty standards in order to make a character attractive is kind of ridiculous. I mean, butts are sexualized across genders. Feeling comfortable pressed up against someone and kissing them is usually a plus. Looking like they may find you interesting as a person or want to impress you are definite help.

When designing a sexy male character: Leave the books about primary and secondary characteristics alone and forget about what manly men say a man should be like and ask, “What’s she going to like in this guy?”

Nothing is genuinely universally attractive, but at least this way you have a chance that the audience will see the appeal even it’s not for them.

– wincenworks

Gendered power fantasies and costume design | Male characters are not sexualized the same

May 28, 2015April 23, 2018

May 28, 2015April 9, 2019

Gamers’ sociopathy by LucidARTDVC

Speaking of demands for “realism”…

As we said the last time when we featured another rhetoric bingo-worthy piece by LucidARTDVC, this artist isn’t joking or being ironic. He genuinely grasps at straws* to excuse his softcore porn bikini armor babe drawings. Instead of, you know, admitting to himself that fanservice is a thing.

So, as ladyofpayne brought our attention to the above, um, piece of art, let’s maybe address the fairly popular “argument” that we’re supposedly some anti-escapism killjoys who demand fantasy stories to be exclusively realistic (and let’s maybe not address how it apparently makes us sociopaths, cause that’s some new level of ad hominem peppered with ableism).

On to the subject, though:

First, it should really go without saying, but neither we nor sites/communities with similar goals actually expect all fiction to be exclusively realistic/naturalistic. You can’t even quote someone demanding such thing, cause no-one says that.

Second, it’s not the issue of “realism” in the first place, but of willing suspension of disbelief and consistency in worldbuilding. Bikini armors are too silly to play them straight; plain and simple. Using them without awareness of their absurdity will break the audience’s immersion in the story. Especially if they’re featured next to male-exclusive full armors. Presence of some fantasy elements

in the established world

is not yet a reason every random implausibility, like skimpy “armors”, is allowed.

Third, fiction is not made in a vacuum. Nothing in writing happens by accident. And so, the creators should consider the message the used tropes send, rather than justify their questionable choices retroactively. That’s also why authors should not excuse anything they do with “rule of cool”. Cause that’s just a refusal to think critically of one’s creation.

*I’m still impressed (in the worst way possible) by that conveniently ripped out-of-context Art of War quote, as if Sun Tzu would so totally approve of chainmail bikinis, cause… speed bonus?!

~Ozzie

Pretty much. In an era where companies are spending millions to generate the most realistic looking water effects – I really don’t think it’s too much to ask that we reconsider the way we design women’s armor.

– wincenworks

May 28, 2015

On some redesigned female armor I see plackart designed as V-shaped (for example gingerhaze’s purple-white-pink platemail, recently featured at BABD). It looks better aesthetically but on historical armor I saw plackart designed as upside-down V-shaped (for example look at wikipedia article about plackart). I wonder if straight V-shaped plackart which I see a lot in fictional armor has same functionality as a historical prototype.

bikiniarmorbattledamage:

Frankly, I have no idea about significance of V-shape in regards of realistic plate armor (all I learned about armor design was through running this blog). Seems like your question is more suited for an armorer, like Ryan ‘Jabberwock’ who wrote this article.

What’s significant in the post you’re referring to is this bit gingerhaze wrote (some parts bolded for emphasis):

Would this actually work in real life as real armor? Probably not? But I’m not sure that’s the most important thing to focus on, unless you’re making a gritty, realistic, historically-accurate work. For fantasy? COOLNESS is what counts. I’m all for seeing non-sexualized, diverse ladytypes with functional armor, as long as the coolness factor doesn’t get lost!

In fiction, believability based on realism is much more important than sticking to straight-up realism. As simonjadis says in a reply I reblogged some time ago:

A naturalistic story tells a story that is completely plausible in our world. No wizards, no dragons, no secret vampires, no alien invasions. Telling a realistic story is telling a story that is logical and consistent and makes sense (even if the setting is in a fictional world or in a reality very different from our own).

And that’s one of the basic things BABD aims for: promoting female warriors who dress in believable and protective manner, not necessarily realistic/naturalistic.

We criticize bikini armors, boobplates etc. not specifically because they’re historically inaccurate (which they are, but so are dragons and orcs). We criticize them because they’re inconsistent with how most fictional settings work.

This Throwback Thursday, a reminder that, contrary to popular opinion, BABD does NOT ask for “realism” in fantasy entertainment, but for consistency.

And, while we still claim there might be legit reasons to design ridiculous skimpy armors, we have yet to see a non-erotic, non-satire explanation that makes sense in the context of the story and doesn’t include double standard.

~Ozzie

May 28, 2015

Anonymous:

On some redesigned female armor I see plackart designed as V-shaped (for example gingerhaze’s purple-white-pink platemail, recently featured at BABD). It looks better aesthetically but on historical armor I saw plackart designed as upside-down V-shaped (for example look at wikipedia article about plackart). I wonder if straight V-shaped plackart which I see a lot in fictional armor has same functionality as a historical prototype.

bikiniarmorbattledamage:

Frankly, I have no idea about significance of V-shape in regards of realistic plate armor (all I learned about armor design was through running this blog). Seems like your question is more suited for an armorer, like Ryan ‘Jabberwock’ who wrote this article.

What’s significant in the post you’re referring to is this bit gingerhaze wrote (some parts bolded for emphasis):

Would this actually work in real life as real armor? Probably not? But I’m not sure that’s the most important thing to focus on, unless you’re making a gritty, realistic, historically-accurate work. For fantasy? COOLNESS is what counts. I’m all for seeing non-sexualized, diverse ladytypes with functional armor, as long as the coolness factor doesn’t get lost!

In fiction, believability based on realism is much more important than sticking to straight-up realism. As simonjadis says in a reply I reblogged some time ago:

A naturalistic story tells a story that is completely plausible in our world. No wizards, no dragons, no secret vampires, no alien invasions. Telling a realistic story is telling a story that is logical and consistent and makes sense (even if the setting is in a fictional world or in a reality very different from our own).

And that’s one of the basic things BABD aims for: promoting female warriors who dress in believable and protective manner, not necessarily realistic/naturalistic.

We criticize bikini armors, boobplates etc. not specifically because they’re historically inaccurate (which they are, but so are dragons and orcs). We criticize them because they’re inconsistent with how most fictional settings work.

This Throwback Thursday, a reminder that, contrary to popular opinion, BABD does NOT ask for “realism” in fantasy entertainment, but for consistency.

~Ozzie

May 26, 2015April 23, 2018

May 26, 2015April 9, 2019

May 25, 2015

Hey, I was just looking at that rule 63 Power Girl, and it got me thinking. Why do people, when they make these types of rule 63, focus on the primary sexual characteristics, and not the secondary? If you were to make a rule 63 of the rule 63 Power Girl, you would need to give her a huge clitoris/vulva.

(source)

Whether something classifies as a primary or secondary characteristic is mostly only of interest to biologists and people involved in medicine. The classification refers purely to biological matters and development during puberty.

If someone were to make a Rule 63 of the Rule 63 would look like Power Girl, because massive genitalia is not what society considers “sexy” in women – but massive boobs are.

What’s really interesting to me is the disregard for all the other aspects involved. For example, Power Boy’s lips remain full and kissable but his upper body is more bulked than Power Girl – but not as ripped and chiseled as conventional super heroes are.

– wincenworks

more about false equivalence on BABD

May 25, 2015

marchoftheaprils:

Hey, I was just looking at that rule 63 Power Girl, and it got me thinking. Why do people, when they make these types of rule 63, focus on the primary sexual characteristics, and not the secondary? If you were to make a rule 63 of the rule 63 Power Girl, you would need to give her a huge clitoris/vulva.

(source)

If someone were to make a Rule 63 of the Rule 63 would look like Power Girl, because massive genitalia is not what society considers “sexy” in women – but massive boobs are.

– wincenworks

more about false equivalence on BABD

May 23, 2015

So you recall that Mobius game?…

loelthereaper submitted:

Well aside from that the main character, Wal, had his gloriously empowered hips and obliques shunned under a black cloth, two characters were introduced to the story,

The formidable, scary-looking quiet, and blunt Garland

And then there’s this cutesy little fairy that aids you in Battle, known as Echo. It sounds all dandy, until you see her design…

… *sigh* So much potential for brave new ideas for this game, but Square – just like Wal’s hip line- backed out and went down the old beaten path of double standard design in games. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go sob in the corner for what could have been…

Okay, usually the necktie between cleavage thing strikes me as overkill… but necktie attached to a collar, between cleavage with a necktie shaped window underneath, with a tiebar that connects to random straps just there to outline her boobs, is just beyond ridiculous.

Meanwhile apparently it’s too much to ask that Wal get to show off that body that he’s spent so long working out and dieting for.

– wincenworks