ask – Page 6 – Bikini Armor Battle Damage

January 5, 2015

What if I just think Final Fantasy has bad costume design in general, regardless of sex? Or damn near any Square game? Is it okay to think that?

Seems to me it’s okay to think that, especially since we very much agree that FF has LOTS of horrendous female costumes to offer as well.
But it’s not so fine if you only voice that opinion with the male characters.
It’s really suspicious how people get vocal with “I don’t like it because of bad design” only when a dude is shown in skimpy armor, even though there are plenty more ridiculous female costumes to pick apart.

In the context of sexualized male armor, how much comparison do we actually have? Almost none.

How does male sexualization go “right”, then? There’s barely any standard to hold on to. So much so, that many people think that skimpiness itself is inherently feminine.

I have said already (and still stand by it), we’ve seen so many ugly-as-hell female armors in mainstream games that I do not mind if the first prominent sexy male armor in a while gets to be badly designed. We need to catch up on all kinds of skimpy male armor, “good” and “bad” alike, anyway.

Also, personally I really don’t find it bad in FF standards. The franchise always liked their costumes ridiculously over the top and silly, so this thing is actually not that unusual for them.
Part of the joke of our post was the fact how epicly the dudebros overreacted to a design that was just natural progression from how older Final Fantasy bishounen looked.

Anyway, to answer what you were actually trying to pursue with that question: everyone’s perfectly entitled to personally find that character (if not all FF visuals) bad design-wise, but it would be advised if they kept that opinion, well, personal.*

Skimpy male armor is so scarce in mainstream media that there is no way to criticize any particular one without sounding as if you found the mere concept of a man in sexy armor bad.
And, if you asked me, that concept, unlike the concept of sexy female armor, is not bad, it is subversive and therefore sheds light at the inherent problem of skimpy female armor.

~Ozzie

* Is is also advised to examine thoroughly what exactly makes the design supposedly “bad” to you.
If you (likely) discover that it’s the same element that makes the design “sexy”, then you officially missed the point.

PS: Regarding your other message concerning Japan’s sensibilities, I’d advice you to read this post.

December 23, 2014

We need to talk

Well we don’t really, these concerns are covered in the FAQ but since we’re still getting the outrage for our noble work – let’s have some fun!

Bring out contestant number one! Sorry, I already forgot your name!

Firstly I (the straight cis man known as wincenworks) love the assumption that it’s only women who are enjoying our Sexy Male Armor Fridays because a fairly hefty proportion of them are made by and for gay or otherwise queer men. It actually takes quite a bit of work to find them even on video game mod sites and art sites.

Meanwhile all I have to do to see women being objectified is open up Steam or visit my local comic book shop. It’s everywhere. In everything. It’s the predominant image of heroines and strong female characters.

So to answer your question, when we ever start to reach a reality where male characters aren’t considered worthwhile unless they conform to a very narrow beauty standard then we can start worrying about objectification of men. If that ever happens and isn’t immediately backpedaled over.

And now for our second concerned citizen! Sorry I forgot who you are too.

I can only assume this refers to one or more of the many “empowered” jokes that we make both on sexy male armor posts and others. This because the fallacy that it is somehow a power fantasy for women to conform to ridiculously demanding and implausible beauty standards.

High heels, thongs, push-up bras the flaunt cleavage, bared belly buttons and bedroom eyes often aren’t even used to to signal heightened sexuality in a female character – they’re just there as some sort of a “be sexy so boys will like you, remember you’re empowered” uniform. The top priority is still making straight men feel the character is made for them in particular.

Various media love spins of trying to excuse hypersexualizing women such as weaponized femininity, "she’s so powerful“ and a whole bunch of other things. But very rarely does it have anything to do female characters actually having power, doing what they want and not conforming to society’s demanding expectations.

James Bond gets to be powerful, sexy and use his sexual appeal to get what he wants too. But he also gets to do it while wearing awesome suits,having a charming personality and doing lots of things just because he wants to (as well as his super cool job). Not many female characters get this kind of opportunity.

So really it’s not that there’s not a relationship between sex and power, it’s just there’s a very limited relationship between hypersexualized female armor and power.

– wincenworks

November 11, 2014

I remember scrolling through your blog a while ago and it had a short comic like thing that showed how women would would put on kevlar armor but for the life of me I can’t find it. I need for reference material.

I think you’re referring to this reblog.

Important thing we’ve been noted regarding that comic: breast binding with bandages is a big no-no!
Compression bandage is designed rather to reduce blood flow to the wounds than to change the body shape; using it to contain a perfectly healthy body part may cause serious circulation issues and/or, with prolonged use, deformation. Sports bras or special binders are the healthier, preferred option for keeping one’s boobs in place.

Answering publicly so we can get the word out about the binding problem.

~Ozzie

more info RE: chest binding

November 3, 2014

I’d always thought that Angemon was shirtless, and the only thing he was wearing aside from the helmet was a loincloth and boots, but I can see now that he is basically wearing a vacuum-sealed morphsuit in addition. I’d personally argue that Angewomon’s outfit was never intended to represent armor in any case(though I’m not sure what it WAS supposed to represent) oh, and at least Ophanimon’s evil form(Falldown mode) doesn’t have the belly window though if it directly translates it might have

the metal directly on skin problem

RE: Angewomon’s bingo description

Yes, that’s exactly how it looks to me. Thank you for understanding that!

We got some replies from readers who didn’t seem to notice that there’s skin-colored part of Angemon’s face visible, which suggest he’s wearing a skin-tight white bodysuit all over.

I’d even be willing to reconsider, if not for Angewomon, whose design is obviously inspired by his. She definitely wears a strapless one-legged costume with random parts cut out to show her skin. Even her transformation sequence confirms:

So, considering Angemon is her male equivalent, same principle applies: the white stuff is skin-tight clothing, not the character’s skin.

TL;DR: Angemon is not shirtless.

As for her clothes not representing armor, we got that point covered here. As long as she fights looking like that, it counts as a bingo material 😉
Also, she’s wearing a helmet, so at least that part is supposed to imply protection.

And yeah, it’s kind of weird that the evil version of Ophanimon (Angewomon’s ultimate form) is the only fully-covered one. What a bizarre exception.

~Ozzie

November 1, 2014April 23, 2018

September 29, 2014

I found a scenario where boobplates and other kinds of outrageously impractical female armor were not only justified but historically accurate: gladiatorial combat. While they were certainly rare, female gladiators existed and they often wore revealing and impracical outfits in battle. This was because gladiatorial armor wasn’t supposed to be protective, it was supposed to look fancy and leave the wearer vulnerable. People went to the arena to see blood.

While the arenas of Rome would certainly have been the place where you would have seen impractical armor and boobplates if they were to ever exist… however there is no evidence to suggest that ridiculous female armor was ever worn by an gladiatrix.*

There is certainly evidence that female gladiators fought in the arena, however nobody has yet to find the remains of any ridiculous armor, any writings of ridiculous armor or any artistic evidence of it.

Gladiator armor was made “impractical” in the sense that it didn’t protect their vital areas – but it didn’t impede their ability to fight or recover from a fight like a boobplate would. They after all, there to provide a great show (their lives literally depended on it) and boobplates and similar armor would have just reduced the chances for blood (and boobs!)

“Contestants” (to use that term as loosely as possible) in the Roman arenas came in two varieties: People who were being punished in a theatrical manner and people who were basically professional athletes (even if they may be slaves).

According to Seneca the Younger, those who were there to be punished weren’t even issued helmets or shields so had no ridiculous armor. The professional athletes had very specific equipment issued to them depending on their roles, No room for flashy boob armor.

– wincenworks

* Do not do an image search for “gladiatrix”, you will not find anything remotely helpful, but you will find a lot of stuff that is down right disturbing.

September 15, 2014

I think it’s a bit odd to say the Pillar Men are not a seductive threat to the heterosexuality of male viewers and then follow it up by saying that they are meant to make them feel uncomfortable. Usually when a villain is Coded as gay they tend to be effeminate and petty contrasting the traditional masculinity of the main character, or they tend to be musclebound bear-men who intimidate with their sexuallity, whereas the Pillar Men are fought as equals. Contrast the Stardust Crusaders villains.

The “sissy villain“ is probably the most common gay-coded archetype in popular media but it’s certainly not the only one. It’s popular in a lot of “family friendly” media as it has it’s roots in the “hero’s inadequate friend” trope and doesn’t really require anything overt.

However, the use of coding of pretty much any “alternative” group (who are only “alternative” due to mainstream society’s lack of acceptance) to flag villains in media is very common. Mostly because these people are “othered” by society and hence the audience is assumed to believe these people are not worthy of human compassion.

Varying degrees of LGBT coding in villains in movies is common enough that there are high profile lists of the best and worst. Game Theory did a video on the vilification of LGBT characters in video games. These are only covering the blatant examples (though notably these characters rarely get to have any romance in their lives). They do however, represent a variety of looks and villains beyond the scheming sissy.

An important thing to understand about this kind of coding is that it is not necessarily done with any intentional malice or even awareness of how the audience might read it. That doesn’t make the end result any less harmful, it just means the creators are often not aware of the harm they’re doing.

Sometimes it happens due to casting priorities (the powers that be insist the primary cast be x, y and z so the only room for diversity with decent characterization is villains). Thus denying these groups the chance to be the hero and instead giving the audience the opposite impression.

Sometimes it’s simply the norm to that creator due to them absorbing so much media where regulations or society in general demanded that “deviant” characters be portrayed in a negative light. Particularly if they’re doing a remake of or heavily inspired by something problematic.

Sometimes it’s just overlap of interests (looks associated with body building and/or fashion can easily overlap into softcore porn for gay men). The further from “normal” they look, the more necessary to ensure they are not “one of” the target audience.

Sometimes these unflattering portrayals are celebrated by members of under represented groups. Sometimes, regardless of how horrible or wildly inaccurate they are absorbed audience and lead to the vilification of innocent people. Sometimes completely ridiculous things become coded due to people’s wild imagination.

Once something becomes “coded” then society only accepts it in media if it’s attached to a member of that “other” or there’s some point made about how this is an exception, etc. So if you want to diversify your cast, society wants you to give the undesirable roles to those in the “other”.

Now this is all different to when you make a character deliberately predatory – trying to push their lifestyle onto the protagonist or player. Tropes such as the “depraved homosexual“ (or ”depraved bisexual”) are more confrontational to the presumed straight male cishet audience. Remember: Even completely non-predatory flirting from fictional people can make an alarming number of straight men panic.

HOWEVER a lot of the anxiety that comes with the acknowledgement of people who are not straight white cis men tends to fade immediately if the “other” is clearly completely different, vilified, dehumanized or even inhuman (the Pillar Men being megalomaniac asexual aliens, for example). They also feel better about it if it’s only “bad guys” who are put in awkward positions due to the presence of the “other”.

All of which is to say that pop culture and modern media in general feel that – if something can be interpreted as not a proper part of straight cis society then the place for it is in the “other” which often means as the bad guys, comic relief or both.

– wincenworks

September 14, 2014

Guy that (supposedly) worked on a mobile game said they’d first tried not to use sex appeal. Tried some inoffensive DLC & got lukewarm response. Then they caved & tried selling things that “sexed up” the game. Supposedly they gained more male gamers (& their revenue) than they lost from girls leaving. QUESTION: Are there good visual examples of warrior women that are genuinely sexy (to teens into girls, theoretically) without being demeaning? Can we have “sex appeal” revenue w.out offensiveness?

The problem with crediting “sexing up” the game with increase in sales is that it assumes sex was the only avenue of generating interest – a theory that doesn’t hold up when you consider that some of the biggest selling game types (flight simulators, first person shooters, side scrolling platformers) often don’t include any sexual angle at all.

Back in 1970, Marvel comics experimented with putting Conan the Barbarian in comic format. After the first few issues sales began to decline and the writer, Roy Thomas (who loved Conan), went to Stan Lee (who was indifferent to Conan) for advice. Stan looked at the covers and the sales, and told them to shift away from putting animals on the covers and instead use more humanoid monsters.

They followed Stan’s advice: Sales went up again and the comic continued for twenty-three years. However you don’t see many people campaigning that “Humanoid monsters sell!“ then trying to fit them into all marketing regardless of product or target market. (And sex obviously wasn’t selling Conan, they had bikini damsels after all)

Conan the Barbarian, in his loincloth and flexing his muscles, looked like a poor man’s Tarzan (which had been the popular comic fifty years ago) when battling animals – but when battling humanoid monsters he looked like a more mature fantasy narrative that was new and unique in comics at the time.

The only narrative that sexing/male gazing up a game really provides is “This game is made to cater to the fantasy of straight men.” So if swapping out your old narrative for this one increases interest and sales dramatically – then your old narrative must have been pretty boring.

There have been numerous warrior women in video games over the years. Most of them have been under marketed, relegated to sidelines, ignored or otherwise mishandled due to general fear that they weren’t meeting the “make straight men feel important” factor that modern markets cling to as their sacred idol.

Cate Archer is essentially a light-hearted, distaff James Bond in the No One Lives Forever franchise dresses in the attire of a fashionable lady in the 60s. Often sexy but out of character for the production. Monolith would later try to replace her with “Contract J.A.C.K.” and have since lost the paperwork so nobody knows who owns the intellectual property.
Faith Connors from Mirror’s Edge has the fitness and style we’d expect of a free running rebel and certainly looks good on the cover.
Mona Sax was, until the end sequence of Max Payne 2, a badass assassin who liked her tight tops but also pants and a jacket to side her gun (Mona starred in more or less equal space with Max on the cover of Max Payne 2, but is barely even mentioned in Max Payne 3).
Aveline de Grandpré dresses in badass leather when assassinating and very becoming gowns when socializing as a noblewoman. It was originally released on a handheld device and if you want to play it on the PC or console that you play the rest of the Assassin’s Creed franchise on you need to buy it online at very specific places that weren’t marketed. (PS3) (X-Box 360) (PC)
Left 4 Dead has Zoey and Rochelle are both attractive young women who possess the will and the skills to survive the zombie apocalypse.
Nilin Cartier-Wells from Remember me is an attractive revolutionary – publishers not only freaked out about the idea of a female lead but also at the idea that the female lead might kiss a man. (Too much like men kissing men!)
Borderlands 2 showcases women off all sorts and each possesses their own style and is equipped for their situation – be it adventuring, working as a mechanic or running a bar. (This game has sold over 10 million copies by the way, and been featured on BABD as a positive example)
Casandra Pentaghast in Dragon Age certainly does not wear bikini armor or anything exploitative – but there’s no shortage of folks who find her incredibly attractive.

It’s actually not that difficult for creators to make female characters who are sexually attractive without going into bikini armor or other exploitative tropes. I mean, if you give a woman agency, ability and personality – odds are good people will find it sexy.

Essentially the problem is that the gaming industry, and many other mediums, are reluctant to take the risk of incorporating different perspectives and different priorities over “games to reassure straight white men that they’re straight and awesome”.

– wincenworks

September 9, 2014April 23, 2018

August 21, 2014

have you seen the armor for characters on Diablo III, and if so, what’s your opinion on them? i think they’re actually very practical compared to other games and if a piece of armor’s revealing on a woman it’s likely to also be revealing on its male equivalent :)

I don’t think I would ever describe any outfit from Diablo III as “practical”. Which is okay in itself, fantasy that conforms strictly to reality isn’t much of a fantasy.

That said, I feel there is only one outfit for a character in Diablo III that deserves celebrating – the Crusader. And I suspect she only got her outfit because of the moral implications of her occupation:

All the others may be equally revealing, but are designed with very different stories and themes to them. For example, as is appropriate to our blog, Barbarians.

First there’s the male barbarian. A massively muscular individual on a huge skeletal frame – his heart exposed due to his apparent unwillingness to match a breastplate with his oversized pauldrons and horned belt.

Female barbarian, equally exposed per se but her frame is less bulky, her pauldrons less over done, she has no big horns before her and her outfit is structured to ensure nothing obscures the silhouette of her boobs:

And of course, there’s the desktop wallpaper that’s seems to be a homage to Red Sonja in wardrobe, hair and general presentation.

A lack of armor or even clothing is not inherently a bad thing. It is not by accident that a totally nude warrior will not score Bingo, but a suit of battle lingerie will. Depending on your circumstances, it may even be safer and healthier to disrobe before battle.

Outfits should not be measured by some sort of skin quota – there are some amazingly terrible outfits that cover a lot of skin. Rather it has to do with the purpose and priorities behind the designs, no amount of tweaking a male version’s armor or arbitrary coverage rules is ever going to disguise when a design prioritized being sexy over being badass. Rather it tends to just make things even more absurd:

All of this is sadly pretty standard for fantasy and video games in general due to the strange belief that (regardless of what other aspects they have) at least the highly visible, if not all, female characters must present aspects like cleavage in order to be successful.

Which is really ridiculous when you remember that some of them (coughUbisoftcough) really seem irrationally adverse to including playable female characters in the first place.

– wincenworks