bikiniarmorbattledamage:

reyairia:

reyairia:

A gameshow that forces male nerds into the unnecessarily sexualized outfits female video game characters have that they defend as “practical,” and then makes them do agility training

this had sixty notes last night

SIXTY NOTES

Invitation to that show should be sent to everyone whose argumentation is worth playing the Female Armor Rhetoric Bingo with.

~Ozzie

I think I know what the first round of costumes would include!

And of course, my favorite groin-injuring bullshit outfit

Let the games begin!

-Icy

bikiniarmorbattledamage:

reyairia:

reyairia:

A gameshow that forces male nerds into the unnecessarily sexualized outfits female video game characters have that they defend as “practical,” and then makes them do agility training

this had sixty notes last night

SIXTY NOTES

Invitation to that show should be sent to everyone whose argumentation is worth playing the Female Armor Rhetoric Bingo with.

~Ozzie

I think I know what the first round of costumes would include!

And of course, my favorite groin-injuring bullshit outfit

Let the games begin!

-Icy

bikiniarmorbattledamage:

Remember when I said earlier that Kojima reference never gets old? Wish I meant it only as “mocking that tweet about Quiet is always funny”.

NOPE. Media creators actually keep using some variation of “Once you learn why her being half naked has convenient in-story reasons, you will feel ashamed about your comments” to preemptively shut down criticism they know they gonna get for creepy double standards in costume/character design

So, again, let’s make it clear: designing fictional explanations for gratuitously creepy ideas in fiction does not mean they’re impervious from real-world critique.

~Ozzie

Even before Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle movie came out this winter, its Thermian argument for the “jungle wardrobe” was more or less known: those are video game avatars of the teenage characters sucked into virtual incarnation of Jumanji. Also, Jack Black’s character’s a girl.

Does that explain Karen Gillan’s stereotypical “sexy action girl” look? Yeah, sure

Does that justify it? Is recreating the problems of the video game industry in a comedy that takes place inside of a magical video game a good commentary on those problems? Not necessarily. Doing satire is very hard.

Did that explanation really warrant a Kojima-style “Wait till you know the plot before criticizing” social media post?

image

nope.gif

~Ozzie

So naturally when we first posted this a bunch of people rushed to tell us this was a reference to Lara Croft (as though we’d never heard of her).  Now, Lara has had many looks in her long career… but literally none of them have included a faux holster that is made exclusively to function as a “lifts and separates” cupless cincher.

image

So right there, that kind of subverts any claim of “it’s the point we’re making” that was pushed as the explanation for this:

image

And to be honest, reality already did peak highlighting of the absurdity of the short shorts back in 2008. When, then official face of Lara Croft, Alison Carrol, did a photoshoot demonstrating her gymnastic ability and the shorts’ inability to completely cover her labia majora.

– wincenworks

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