bikiniarmorbattledamage:

bigbardafree:

female characters 

image

can be

image

covered up

image

and objectified

image

female characters

image

can be

image

pantsless

image

and not

image

objectified

image

IT’S UP TO THE ARTISTS AND WRITERS

I dedicate this reblog to anyone who thinks that we object to women showing some skin by principle… No, we don’t. Just as we do not think covering everything up is a universal solution to the problem sexist costume designs.

The way a character is framed (visually and story-wise) makes a world of difference between just having a questionable costume and being outright objectified.

And as much as bikinis, bathing suits, cheerleader outfits etc. remain a silly wardrobe choice for an on-duty warrior/crimefighter, above here we have small sample of evidence that pants or full-body suits can actually look worse.

Let me refer back to @pointlessarguments101​’s article that I quoted waaay back:

Putting a female hero in pants does not mean she is somehow protected from an artist positioning her primarily for the male gaze. For example, Marvel Comics recently began a new ongoing called Fearless Defenders which stars Valkyrie and Misty Knight. Both of these characters wear pants and, yet, I lost count by about page five of how many times Misty’s ass took center stage in any given panel. Basically, where there’s a male gaze will, there’s a male gaze way — pants or no pants, tights or bared legs.

Preach! 

~Ozzie 

more on costume design | more on character design | more about the iconic example: Starfire

This week’s throwback: the significant difference between sexualization and showing skin. Yes, amazingly, they are not and never were the same thing.

We talked lately about how presentation/framing of the character via such things as posing and camera angles is what ultimately decides whether or not the character is objectified.

Skimpy costumes, of course, more often than not also serve female sexualization more than anything. Still, there are certain, very limited circumstances that can justify something as absurd as chainmail bikini.

Not to mention all the various non-bikini forms of partial nudity that are decidedly non-sexual and equivalent to many shirtless male power fantasies.

~Ozzie

bikiniarmorbattledamage:

bigbardafree:

female characters 

image

can be

image

covered up

image

and objectified

image

female characters

image

can be

image

pantsless

image

and not

image

objectified

image

IT’S UP TO THE ARTISTS AND WRITERS

I dedicate this reblog to anyone who thinks that we object to women showing some skin by principle… No, we don’t. Just as we do not think covering everything up is a universal solution to the problem sexist costume designs.

The way a character is framed (visually and story-wise) makes a world of difference between just having a questionable costume and being outright objectified.

And as much as bikinis, bathing suits, cheerleader outfits etc. remain a silly wardrobe choice for an on-duty warrior/crimefighter, above here we have small sample of evidence that pants or full-body suits can actually look worse.

Let me refer back to @pointlessarguments101​’s article that I quoted waaay back:

Putting a female hero in pants does not mean she is somehow protected from an artist positioning her primarily for the male gaze. For example, Marvel Comics recently began a new ongoing called Fearless Defenders which stars Valkyrie and Misty Knight. Both of these characters wear pants and, yet, I lost count by about page five of how many times Misty’s ass took center stage in any given panel. Basically, where there’s a male gaze will, there’s a male gaze way — pants or no pants, tights or bared legs.

Preach! 

~Ozzie 

more on costume design | more on character design | more about the iconic example: Starfire

This week’s throwback: the significant difference between sexualization and showing skin. Yes, amazingly, they are not and never were the same thing.

We talked lately about how presentation/framing of the character via such things as posing and camera angles is what ultimately decides whether or not the character is objectified.

Skimpy costumes, of course, more often than not also serve female sexualization more than anything. Still, there are certain, very limited circumstances that can justify something as absurd as chainmail bikini.

Not to mention all the various non-bikini forms of partial nudity that are decidedly non-sexual and equivalent to many shirtless male power fantasies.

~Ozzie

It’s probably fair to say that women in fantasy RPGs are the industry’s most highly endangered species.

I mean, these are women who take on entire monster-infested dwarven mines wearing nothing but a bit of moulded plate metal over their chests and a chainmail g-string.

If it’s not disembowelling, it’s probably going to be some kind of really nasty infection from all that… chafing.

Armour expert calls female boob armour a “design flaw” (via bikiniarmorbattledamage)

This is still probably my favorite summary of why skimpy armor obviously makes no sense.

~Ozzie

It’s probably fair to say that women in fantasy RPGs are the industry’s most highly endangered species.

I mean, these are women who take on entire monster-infested dwarven mines wearing nothing but a bit of moulded plate metal over their chests and a chainmail g-string.

If it’s not disembowelling, it’s probably going to be some kind of really nasty infection from all that… chafing.

Armour expert calls female boob armour a “design flaw” (via bikiniarmorbattledamage)

This is still probably my favorite summary of why skimpy armor obviously makes no sense.

~Ozzie

bikiniarmorbattledamage:

So it turns out we have The Onion for video games now.  It’s called Point & Clickbait and so far it seems pretty awesome… and worryingly accurate in ways.

– wincenworks

Two years later, Point & Clickbait continues to deliver on-point articles, this time reporting about PUBG’s female models having distinctly-modeled vulvae.

image

And although the developers have promised to fix the models, they haven’t explained how the models have ended up in the game in the first place.

-Icy

bikiniarmorbattledamage:

doctorsanity:

I think the biggest thing gamers fail to recognize when discussing sexism in video games is presentation. This is the biggest reason why I can never see characters like Zangief even be remotely equivalent to female characters. Disregarding every other difference that sets them apart, when was the last time you saw the camera creepily do a pan across Zangief sensually massaging his breasts and ending on his stuck out ass? His walk cycle isn’t him wildly shaking his hips. None of his animations flaunt his body in the sense that you’re supposed to be attracted to him. And to top it all off I know that, if this actually happened, it would be done as a joke.

image

Thank you for this post! It’s a nice concise explanation

on why male power fantasy is not the same as female sexualization.

It’s tedious at this point when we see someone claim that characters like Conan/Kratos/Zangief are equally “empowered” as their boob-flaunting female peers (because bare chests?). Hope this helps.

~Ozzie

more about false equivalence on BABD

Weekly throwback for today: one of the biggest factors of double standard design conveniently ignored by the false equivalence rhetoric: the presentation. 

Even if we somehow agreed that a bare-chested dude in a speedo/loincloth is the direct male counterpart to a lady in a physically impossible non-costume (consult our bingo archive for examples) – which we don’t agree with – it still wouldn’t take into account the differences in body language, camera angles and other factors that frame a character as an object instead of a person. 

~Ozzie

Presentation is also how you get woman characters who may be fully clothed, but are still objectified. Miranda from Mass Effect may not score very high on the bingo, but when her ass is the only part of her in a shot of her talking to Shepard…

image

Yeah. 

-Icy

bikiniarmorbattledamage:

doctorsanity:

I think the biggest thing gamers fail to recognize when discussing sexism in video games is presentation. This is the biggest reason why I can never see characters like Zangief even be remotely equivalent to female characters. Disregarding every other difference that sets them apart, when was the last time you saw the camera creepily do a pan across Zangief sensually massaging his breasts and ending on his stuck out ass? His walk cycle isn’t him wildly shaking his hips. None of his animations flaunt his body in the sense that you’re supposed to be attracted to him. And to top it all off I know that, if this actually happened, it would be done as a joke.

image

Thank you for this post! It’s a nice concise explanation

on why male power fantasy is not the same as female sexualization.

It’s tedious at this point when we see someone claim that characters like Conan/Kratos/Zangief are equally “empowered” as their boob-flaunting female peers (because bare chests?). Hope this helps.

~Ozzie

more about false equivalence on BABD

Weekly throwback for today: one of the biggest factors of double standard design conveniently ignored by the false equivalence rhetoric: the presentation. 

Even if we somehow agreed that a bare-chested dude in a speedo/loincloth is the direct male counterpart to a lady in a physically impossible non-costume (consult our bingo archive for examples) – which we don’t agree with – it still wouldn’t take into account the differences in body language, camera angles and other factors that frame a character as an object instead of a person. 

~Ozzie

Presentation is also how you get woman characters who may be fully clothed, but are still objectified. Miranda from Mass Effect may not score very high on the bingo, but when her ass is the only part of her in a shot of her talking to Shepard…

image

Yeah. 

-Icy