you can literally get that anywhere else bro
A+ response to an ask regarding that sexy empowering recruitment poster.
What’s that, Anon? You’re uncomfortable to see just one gender sexualized? Gee, wonder how that can feel…
~Ozzie
im ok with this as long as you draw your ladies in equally skimpy armor
you can literally get that anywhere else bro
A+ response to an ask regarding that sexy empowering recruitment poster.
What’s that, Anon? You’re uncomfortable to see just one gender sexualized? Gee, wonder how that can feel…
~Ozzie
Hey, I’m just wondering, is the “male empowerment” a bad thing? Maybe I am just missing some of the subtleties, but, if I may be frank “So what?” I went through a few pages of the tag “Sexy Male Armor”, and I’m not sure what I should feel. From your tone, you often seemed like you were trying to show these costumes in a negative light. On the other hand, I saw JoJo and DIO, so I knew you weren’t saying they were bad.
While we touched upon the subject of male empowerment before, we never discussed it in detail. Also, our tone in sexy male armor posts shifts a lot between sarcasm and talking straight, so can I understand the confusion.
Let’s start with why BABD even posts examples of “empowered men”.
To us, the intent of showing men in skimpy/sexualized armor is satire through contrast. The “Women NEED to be sexy (read: show a lot of skin and do sultry poses)” mentality is so deeply ingrained in our culture that many just assume it to be the natural order of things, that “sexyness” is inherent part of the female gender. But not of the male one.
The “This is NOT a man!” reactions to the initial Mobius Final Fantasy protagonist design come from this line of thinking. Dudebros refuse to accept that men can be unironically sexualized.
Funnily, it’s often paired with the insistence that any shirtless man balances out all the scantily clad ladies. As long as he’s not too sexy, that is. Textbook doublethink.
With such widespread double standard, it takes reversing the scenario to highlight its inherent problem. The big picture gets clearer when the shoe is on the other foot.
GIF source (x)
That’s why blogs/movements like @theliberationofmanfire, @thehawkeyeinitiative or @magicmeatweek were created. And why we post sexy male warriors every Friday. To make men empathize with women’s problem.
Comic source (x)
As for the empowerment itself, we discussed before that both women and men can feel empowered in various ways, but media skews it strongly based on gender stereotypes: women in fiction usually draw power from being sexy, while men from being strong (and/or violent).
And while there’s slow shift towards giving women more varied representation, men (who have
otherwise
very diverse presence) rarely get to be the overtly sexy characters. And those who are usually get to be the villains, which feeds into “evil is sexy” trope as well as to villain gay coding, both ugly concepts that should die.
We have yet to see genuine, non-incidental sexy male empowerment in mainstream media that doesn’t come off as some sort of mockery.
~Ozzie
Also worth remembering that a lot of our commentary on sexy male armor is tongue-in-cheek parody of the kind of rhetoric we regularly receive in our ask box, in reblogs and in broad-spectrum posts that conflate us with other critics.
Because let be clear, if we tried to keep the “sexy male armor” tag stocked with images I came across naturally through my typical cishet male surfing, it wouldn’t happen every Friday or even every month.
But it seems we will never stop hearing that eighteen years ago a game with a villain in briefs was released, fourteen years ago a unpopular video game protagonist did a nudey run and sometimes they get funny feelings during the glimpses of male butt in spandex – so clearly the market is constantly over-saturated and it’s only fair every game have c-string clad warrior women in it.
– wincenworks
Hey, I’m just wondering, is the “male empowerment” a bad thing? Maybe I am just missing some of the subtleties, but, if I may be frank “So what?” I went through a few pages of the tag “Sexy Male Armor”, and I’m not sure what I should feel. From your tone, you often seemed like you were trying to show these costumes in a negative light. On the other hand, I saw JoJo and DIO, so I knew you weren’t saying they were bad.
While we touched upon the subject of male empowerment before, we never discussed it in detail. Also, our tone in sexy male armor posts shifts a lot between sarcasm and talking straight, so can I understand the confusion.
Let’s start with why BABD even posts examples of “empowered men”.
To us, the intent of showing men in skimpy/sexualized armor is satire through contrast. The “Women NEED to be sexy (read: show a lot of skin and do sultry poses)” mentality is so deeply ingrained in our culture that many just assume it to be the natural order of things, that “sexyness” is inherent part of the female gender. But not of the male one.
The “This is NOT a man!” reactions to the initial Mobius Final Fantasy protagonist design come from this line of thinking. Dudebros refuse to accept that men can be unironically sexualized.
Funnily, it’s often paired with the insistence that any shirtless man balances out all the scantily clad ladies. As long as he’s not too sexy, that is. Textbook doublethink.
With such widespread double standard, it takes reversing the scenario to highlight its inherent problem. The big picture gets clearer when the shoe is on the other foot.
GIF source (x)
That’s why blogs/movements like @theliberationofmanfire, @thehawkeyeinitiative or @magicmeatweek were created. And why we post sexy male warriors every Friday. To make men empathize with women’s problem.
Comic source (x)
As for the empowerment itself, we discussed before that both women and men can feel empowered in various ways, but media skews it strongly based on gender stereotypes: women in fiction usually draw power from being sexy, while men from being strong (and/or violent).
And while there’s slow shift towards giving women more varied representation, men (who have
otherwise
very diverse presence) rarely get to be the overtly sexy characters. And those who are usually get to be the villains, which feeds into “evil is sexy” trope as well as to villain gay coding, both ugly concepts that should die.
We have yet to see genuine, non-incidental sexy male empowerment in mainstream media that doesn’t come off as some sort of mockery.
~Ozzie
Also worth remembering that a lot of our commentary on sexy male armor is tongue-in-cheek parody of the kind of rhetoric we regularly receive in our ask box, in reblogs and in broad-spectrum posts that conflate us with other critics.
Because let be clear, if we tried to keep the “sexy male armor” tag stocked with images I came across naturally through my typical cishet male surfing, it wouldn’t happen every Friday or even every month.
But it seems we will never stop hearing that eighteen years ago a game with a villain in briefs was released, fourteen years ago a unpopular video game protagonist did a nudey run and sometimes they get funny feelings during the glimpses of male butt in spandex – so clearly the market is constantly over-saturated and it’s only fair every game have c-string clad warrior women in it.
– wincenworks
I only saw a small post about it so I thought I’d ask for a longer one: What do ya’ll think of Jack from Mass Effect. Compared to MOST of the females in that game is it right to say she isn’t sexualized?
Yes. No. I mean yes. Maybe.
Jack certainly is an example of a character where the core reason behind her exposure is largely explained by her desire to express non-conformity and brazen confidence. She’s consistently portrayed as someone who has a grudge against society and it’s one of many ways she expresses contempt for it. (gif source)
Ironically the more sexualizing aspect is the straps that seem to have been added after the initial design, presumably because we need to protect people from the terror of nipples (by drawing more attention to their existence and further fetishizing them, isn’t society great?).
Unfortunately, when it came time for Mass Effect 3 – her costume seems to have been re-invented with similar focus on sexuality that Ashley’s was.
Overall, Jack in Mass Effect 2 was a fairly good use of non-sexual exposure, Jack in Mass Effect 3 less so. How sexualized each was would be a complex discussion involving things like her looks, structure of Bioware’s romance system, camera angles, etc.
Not really something we can summarize in a blog post.
In comparison to other Mass Effect ladies – well she’s certainly better off (costume wise) than Samara!
– wincenworks
I only saw a small post about it so I thought I’d ask for a longer one: What do ya’ll think of Jack from Mass Effect. Compared to MOST of the females in that game is it right to say she isn’t sexualized?
Yes. No. I mean yes. Maybe.
Jack certainly is an example of a character where the core reason behind her exposure is largely explained by her desire to express non-conformity and brazen confidence. She’s consistently portrayed as someone who has a grudge against society and it’s one of many ways she expresses contempt for it. (gif source)
Ironically the more sexualizing aspect is the straps that seem to have been added after the initial design, presumably because we need to protect people from the terror of nipples (by drawing more attention to their existence and further fetishizing them, isn’t society great?).
Unfortunately, when it came time for Mass Effect 3 – her costume seems to have been re-invented with similar focus on sexuality that Ashley’s was.
Overall, Jack in Mass Effect 2 was a fairly good use of non-sexual exposure, Jack in Mass Effect 3 less so. How sexualized each was would be a complex discussion involving things like her looks, structure of Bioware’s romance system, camera angles, etc.
Not really something we can summarize in a blog post.
In comparison to other Mass Effect ladies – well she’s certainly better off (costume wise) than Samara!
– wincenworks
So, I have been having this discussion in my fandom, and people defend the bikini armour as being “historical accurate” since some cultures “went naked into battle”. How true is this, actually?
It is certainly true some people went naked or near naked into battle, but not alongside warriors in proper armor and not in battle bikinis. There are some other important factors involved in their choice to do so. Firstly it usually only in cases where they didn’t have access to armor and/or the battles were largely ceremonial or otherwise non-lethal.
Armor is developed in response to weapons and usually the first forms of defense were shields. So if you had no nudity taboo and hadn’t developed armor due to lack of resources or lack of regular conflict, you didn’t really have much choice in the matter. Particularly since your weapons are usually tools that are made for hunting or other work.
In areas where this happened, usually the battles were no war in the sense of systematic killing of the enemy but more demonstrations of strength to intimidate others – usually over a piece of farm land or livestock. It was used to resolve grievances and sometimes even as a regular sport.
Usually this happened where people needed everyone to work together in order to provide essential, which means you also don’t need any more land than you already control and work every day. When you have an argument with your neighbours, you settle it to both sides satisfaction so you can resume living next to one another.
The ability to make sophisticated items like bikini armor (which is surprisingly complicated) comes from civilizations where they have sufficient surplus of resources and people they can have specialists who can trade goods and ideas. By the time you reach this level you also a real incentive to try to obtain more and more land.
At that point civilizations can start developing dedicated weapons, training dedicated soldiers (to expand your nation or defend against invaders) and their battles start to involve countless fatalities. Then it becomes worthwhile to begin the cycle of making armor to protect against the enemies weapons, and weapons to beat your enemies armor.
TL;DR: If you’re in a society that has warriors and the know-how and resources to make bikini armor, you’re in a society where your warriors wear actual armor. There were civilizations that fought nude or near nude, but they didn’t have bikini armor, fancy swords, professional warriors or sophisticated combat techniques.
– wincenworks
So, I have been having this discussion in my fandom, and people defend the bikini armour as being “historical accurate” since some cultures “went naked into battle”. How true is this, actually?
It is certainly true some people went naked or near naked into battle, but not alongside warriors in proper armor and not in battle bikinis. There are some other important factors involved in their choice to do so. Firstly it usually only in cases where they didn’t have access to armor and/or the battles were largely ceremonial or otherwise non-lethal.
Armor is developed in response to weapons and usually the first forms of defense were shields. So if you had no nudity taboo and hadn’t developed armor due to lack of resources or lack of regular conflict, you didn’t really have much choice in the matter. Particularly since your weapons are usually tools that are made for hunting or other work.
In areas where this happened, usually the battles were no war in the sense of systematic killing of the enemy but more demonstrations of strength to intimidate others – usually over a piece of farm land or livestock. It was used to resolve grievances and sometimes even as a regular sport.
Usually this happened where people needed everyone to work together in order to provide essential, which means you also don’t need any more land than you already control and work every day. When you have an argument with your neighbours, you settle it to both sides satisfaction so you can resume living next to one another.
The ability to make sophisticated items like bikini armor (which is surprisingly complicated) comes from civilizations where they have sufficient surplus of resources and people they can have specialists who can trade goods and ideas. By the time you reach this level you also a real incentive to try to obtain more and more land.
At that point civilizations can start developing dedicated weapons, training dedicated soldiers (to expand your nation or defend against invaders) and their battles start to involve countless fatalities. Then it becomes worthwhile to begin the cycle of making armor to protect against the enemies weapons, and weapons to beat your enemies armor.
TL;DR: If you’re in a society that has warriors and the know-how and resources to make bikini armor, you’re in a society where your warriors wear actual armor. There were civilizations that fought nude or near nude, but they didn’t have bikini armor, fancy swords, professional warriors or sophisticated combat techniques.
– wincenworks
so sexism and objectification aside, is there a drastic difference between the protection offered by, say, leather or normal cloth versus bare skin? obviously there are significant advantages in the case of armour, but i was wondering more about spandex-wearing superheroes. or is the spandex usually abnormally tough?
Yes. No. Yes. No. Yes. Spandex and regular clothes can have some protective qualities but that’s not why superheroes wear spandex.
The thing with protection and in order to properly estimate how well something will protect you – you need to know what you’re protecting against. Depending on the hazard and the situation, a little cloth can work wonders.
Re-enforced clothes like Battle Dress Uniforms can protect against environmental hazards (such as thorn bushes, gravel, etc), light shrapnel, chemical agents, detection via infrared, low heat flames, etc. They won’t save your life immediately but they’ll protect against pain, shock and infections. But you’ll still want to wear armor over the top if you expect to get shot at.
Leather can be really protective (hence why it’s considered standard motorcycle gear) and also has potential for lots of re-enforcing. They’re expensive, but you can get bullet armor that will protect against the vast majority of pistols – and still look like an old school biker jacket.
Spandex and similar products are not particularly tough against say bullets, knives or fire. In fact the main thing it’s advertised as protection against is sunlight. Spandex-like wet suits are often made to protect against chill, wind, sun even being weighed down by water.
The reason that superheroes wear them is not for any protective quality but rather that they allowed artists to showcase the super heroes as having larger than life physiques and being demonstrations of perfection. While his physique doesn’t seem unattainable now, Superman started in 1938, and this is what a contestants in the 1953 Mr Universe competition looked like:
(If he looks familiar, it’s because he’s Sean Connery)
Basically the problem with the double standard is that superheroine designs are less about looking like the perfect powerhouse and more about looking like the perfect sex toy. To the extent it’s hard to take them seriously and people spend no small amount of time pondering the hazardous of the outfits.
There’s also the matter that creators are often quite comfortable loading up heroes like Batman with so much armor that he needs servos to run and jump around, but heroines like Batgirl are always limited to what can show off her silhouette and show the exact shape of her boobs.
Designs don’t necessarily need to be protective, particularly if you’re selling a larger than life power fantasy – but it shouldn’t look like it’s a massive liability purely for the titillation of the people beyond the fourth wall (unless you’re doing some sort of erotic parody where that’s the point).
– wincenworks
so sexism and objectification aside, is there a drastic difference between the protection offered by, say, leather or normal cloth versus bare skin? obviously there are significant advantages in the case of armour, but i was wondering more about spandex-wearing superheroes. or is the spandex usually abnormally tough?
Yes. No. Yes. No. Yes. Spandex and regular clothes can have some protective qualities but that’s not why superheroes wear spandex.
The thing with protection and in order to properly estimate how well something will protect you – you need to know what you’re protecting against. Depending on the hazard and the situation, a little cloth can work wonders.
Re-enforced clothes like Battle Dress Uniforms can protect against environmental hazards (such as thorn bushes, gravel, etc), light shrapnel, chemical agents, detection via infrared, low heat flames, etc. They won’t save your life immediately but they’ll protect against pain, shock and infections. But you’ll still want to wear armor over the top if you expect to get shot at.
Leather can be really protective (hence why it’s considered standard motorcycle gear) and also has potential for lots of re-enforcing. They’re expensive, but you can get bullet armor that will protect against the vast majority of pistols – and still look like an old school biker jacket.
Spandex and similar products are not particularly tough against say bullets, knives or fire. In fact the main thing it’s advertised as protection against is sunlight. Spandex-like wet suits are often made to protect against chill, wind, sun even being weighed down by water.
The reason that superheroes wear them is not for any protective quality but rather that they allowed artists to showcase the super heroes as having larger than life physiques and being demonstrations of perfection. While his physique doesn’t seem unattainable now, Superman started in 1938, and this is what a contestants in the 1953 Mr Universe competition looked like:
(If he looks familiar, it’s because he’s Sean Connery)
Basically the problem with the double standard is that superheroine designs are less about looking like the perfect powerhouse and more about looking like the perfect sex toy. To the extent it’s hard to take them seriously and people spend no small amount of time pondering the hazardous of the outfits.
There’s also the matter that creators are often quite comfortable loading up heroes like Batman with so much armor that he needs servos to run and jump around, but heroines like Batgirl are always limited to what can show off her silhouette and show the exact shape of her boobs.
Designs don’t necessarily need to be protective, particularly if you’re selling a larger than life power fantasy – but it shouldn’t look like it’s a massive liability purely for the titillation of the people beyond the fourth wall (unless you’re doing some sort of erotic parody where that’s the point).
– wincenworks