Women and Armor!

[Remilia_Nightfall]

things

Yes I know, I really thought I was going to stop replying here but I kinda fell for it again. I am sorry, I really meant to stop, believe me :/

I think I have already answered to your question in my previous reply, tho. To summarize - the reason for which women can "crossdress" while men can't is simply because male garments are usually more neutral. Think about jeans, for example - they are worn by females all around the world now, and why is that? Because they are trousers. Simple trousers. Why don't men wear striped, schoolgirl-styled skirts, tho? Because, aestetichally, it would be HORRIBLE with male hairy legs sprouting underneath.

Also, funnily enough, women are the ones who started to dress more "manly", in recent years: no more high heels, no more skirts, less makeup, baggy clothes. it was THEIR choice when they started believing that men were "superior", and thus "dressing like men was cool".
I can assure you that, generally speaking, males prefer females who dress like females - as much as females like males who dress like damned males and not like Hildibrand at the beach.
Males can't help it, if females are the first ones who believe that "feminine = degrading".

I really fail to understand how this is not obvious. Men and women ARE different, and thus the clothing reflects those differences. There is no reason to "hide" those differences by trying to force everyone to dress the same. Why would anyone want this, unless a person was ashamed of his/her body in the first place?

[Aegis]

Yes I know, I really thought I was going to stop replying here but I kinda fell for it again. I am sorry, I really meant to stop, believe me :/

I think I have already answered to your question in my previous reply, tho. To summarize - the reason for which women can "crossdress" while men can't is simply because male garments are usually more neutral. Think about jeans, for example - they are worn by females all around the world now, and why is that? Because they are trousers. Simple trousers. Why don't men wear striped, schoolgirl-styled skirts, tho? Because, aestetichally, it would be HORRIBLE with male hairy legs sprouting underneath.

Also, funnily enough, women are the ones who started to dress more "manly": no more high heels, no more skirts, less makeup, baggy clothes. it was THEIR choice when they started believing that men were superior, and thus "dressing like men was cool".
I can assure you that, generally speaking, males prefer females who dress like females - as much as females like males who dress like damned males and not like Hildibrand at the beach.

Men dress in skirts and dresses all over the world and all through history. Greek warriors wore leather skirts, Scots still wear Kilts (though it has be said, mostly on Burn's day and at Weddings) and neither are accused of femininity. Indeed, Scottish plaid is one of the most common patterns for school skirts.

Dresses and wraps are traditionally common across the Pacific.

Cuban heels are not seen as feminine.

Hell, there's a transvestite working not 50 yards from me across the office. He's quite a funny guy and has a string of girlfriends that I know of. He doesn't appear to have a problem attracting the ladies.

[Remilia_Nightfall]

snip

I explicitly used "schoolgirl-styled skirts" as an example, not scottish kilts or wizard robes or cuban heels. I never said "all robes and skirt-like clothing is exclusively for females". I was speaking of pieces of clothing deliberately designed either for men or for women.

Wait, let me do a visual example using Japanese school uniforms:






Which one do you find less stupid?

Wait, you're telling me a feudal japanese noblewoman was happy to exploit war orphans and prostitutes? Say it ain't so.

The Wikipedia article has not a single cited reference of them wearing revealing clothing.

Tbh it is a rather well-known fact to any student of Japanese history (possessing a degree in that, I can testify to it). Courtesans and prostitutes were absolutely ideal to act as Kunoichi as they could get closer to their target quite easily by using their body as lure.
It's nothing surprising, really. And yes, orphans were often raised as spies acting as courtesans / prostitutes. This is how "ninja" were born - hardly anyone became a "ninja" of its own volition. The ninja were outlaws, criminals, and were despised by both the common folks and the noble, Samurai caste.

The modern media created the magical / martial idea of the "honorable ninja" which is now seen everywhere, but historically they were the lowest trash.

[Elgeron]

I explicitly used "schoolgirl-styled skirts" as an example, not scottish kilts or wizard robes or cuban heels. I never said "all robes and skirt-like clothing is exclusively for females". I was speaking of pieces of clothing deliberately designed either for men or for women.

Wait, let me do a visual example using Japanese school uniforms:






Which one do you find less stupid?

I'm totally honest here, the more I look to the second photo, the less stupid I find it, I don't know why.

Then again the first one is clearly posing and being all cool while the guys are just getting dress and looking kind of akward.

Mayhaps one of the reasons female clothes looks bad on men is not because they are skirts, but because they are not designed apropietly for the male body, coupled with the fact that we are taugh to consider a way of dressing as ridicule and funny when men are sporting such clothes ? I don't really know much about the matter.

I'm my opinion I kind of agree in the fact that the differences between the differents gears are kind of puzzling and even a bit silly. They are not too big, but it can hurt if you are going for a more serious or prude character look. But at this point changing it is kind of impossible even if it would be simple to do because then you anger the other side who actually like those differences. And letting both options as ideal as it may be is probably not a possibility.

I love the variety of sexy and regular gear for both genders that the game offer, is probably not only one of the best examples of the best examples in the MMO's market, but also of videogames in general I think SE did an amazing an exemplar job there. Really outstanding ^^

If you want to blame someone about "sexy clothes" blame the playerbase, they asked for this (literally, the were tons of topics back in the 1.0 days asking for more sexy and pretty gear for the ladies).

[LineageRazor]

I think I have already answered to your question in my previous reply, tho. To summarize - the reason for which women can "crossdress" while men can't is simply because male garments are usually more neutral. Think about jeans, for example - they are worn by females all around the world now, and why is that? Because they are trousers. Simple trousers. Why don't men wear striped, schoolgirl-styled skirts, tho? Because, aestetichally, it would be HORRIBLE with male hairy legs sprouting underneath.

Why are men's clothes neutral? Because being a MAN is normal. Being a woman is abnormal. Recognize the double standard? This is the attitude men (and women!) in the entertainment industry are accustomed to, and that the audience has come to expect. It is not inherently natural by any means, but the result of centuries of culture that we're slowly managing to overcome.

Hairy legs are unappealing? YOU find them unappealing, obviously. Likely most heterosexual men find them unappealing. Gay/bi men and het women? A matter of taste, to be sure, but there's enough bara artwork out there for me to rest easy saying that, hell yes, they are sexy to an awful lot of people. Your arguments come from a distinctly heterosexual male perspective, and while that may be natural since you are a heterosexual male, your arguments have the disturbing air that the heterosexual male view is the correct and natural view, the one that developers should cater to. Other views are unnatural and "disturbing".

Also, to the people saying that this thread is pointless, and should be closed - you're partly right. This thread started with a silly video lampshading the "battle bikini" popularized by fantasy, and evolved (or devolved?) into a serious discussion on objectification of women in video games and other entertainment media. As such, it has strayed from the original topic rather drastically.

It's important, though, to bear these double standards in mind. I don't think that there's a lot of us here that watched that video and were confused by it. You watched it, and chuckled along because yes, you understand that the sexualzation of women's "armor" compared to men is ridiculous and clearly meant to be titilating. You recognize the double standard for what it is.

None of us fail to recognize the double standard. The point of debate is whether or not the double standard is HARMFUL. I personally don't think so. As long as you can clearly understand what is fantasy and what is not, you're fine. As long as you treat REAL humans like human beings and not sex toys, as long as you believe and understand that real humans are human beings and not sex toys, it honestly doesn't matter WHAT kind of depraved porn floats your boat. Fantasy is fantasy. Reality is reality.

[Remilia_Nightfall]

Why are men's clothes neutral? Because being a MAN is normal. Being a woman is abnormal. Recognize the double standard? This is the attitude men (and women!) in the entertainment industry are accustomed to, and that the audience has come to expect. It is not inherently natural by any means, but the result of centuries of culture that we're slowly managing to overcome.

Hairy legs are unappealing? YOU find them unappealing, obviously. Likely most heterosexual men find them unappealing. Gay/bi men and het women? A matter of taste, to be sure, but there's enough bara artwork out there for me to rest easy saying that, hell yes, they are sexy to an awful lot of people. Your arguments come from a distinctly heterosexual male perspective, and while that may be natural since you are a heterosexual male, your arguments have the disturbing air that the heterosexual male view is the correct and natural view, the one that developers should cater to. Other views are unnatural and "disturbing".

Also, to the people saying that this thread is pointless, and should be closed - you're partly right. This thread started with a silly video lampshading the "battle bikini" popularized by fantasy, and evolved (or devolved?) into a serious discussion on objectification of women in video games and other entertainment media. As such, it has strayed from the original topic rather drastically.

It's important, though, to bear these double standards in mind. I don't think that there's a lot of us here that watched that video and were confused by it. You watched it, and chuckled along because yes, you understand that the sexualzation of women's "armor" compared to men is ridiculous and clearly meant to be titilating. You recognize the double standard for what it is.

None of us fail to recognize the double standard. The point of debate is whether or not the double standard is HARMFUL. I personally don't think so. As long as you can clearly understand what is fantasy and what is not, you're fine. As long as you treat REAL humans like human beings and not sex toys, as long as you believe and understand that real humans are human beings and not sex toys, it honestly doesn't matter WHAT kind of depraved porn floats your boat. Fantasy is fantasy. Reality is reality.

It is "natural" in the sense that it's how our civilization has developed over the centuries, and NOT in the entertainment industry, unless you are claiming that movies and videogames shaped the concepts of male and female since time immemorial.
It was a "natural" evolution in the sense that there was no extraterrestial force dictacting it - humanity reached its current state by itself, thus every decision that brought us to the current situation was "natural".

Sure, things could have turned out differently, but it's not important, as they DID NOT. I am all for starting a "What if" scenario, but it's hardly relevant with the issue at hand. The state of the world is what it is, and WE, both males and females BOTH, helped to achieve it.

My view might be one of a "heterosexual male", but my girlfriend, for one, agrees with me on all the line and she is an "heterosexual female". She does not like men dressed like girls, because, guess what, her brain has been programmed to LIKE MEN.

There is no "normal" or "abnormal". This is a misconception. There is just what there is.

I agree with you tho on the fact that, ultimately, this is irrelevant. As long as one does not disrespect by default the opposite sex in real life, having female ninjas with boobs showing is, honestly, not a very huge problem.

[LineageRazor]

It is "natural" in the sense that it's how our civilization has developed over the centuries, and NOT in the entertainment industry, unless you are claiming that movies and videogames shaped the concepts of male and female since time immemorial.
It was a "natural" evolution in the sense that there was no extraterrestial force dictacting it - humanity reached its current state by itself, thus every decision that brought us to the current situation was "natural".

I never said, or even implied, that the entertainment industry is what has built our gender roles over the years, just that the people within it are as bound by them as anyone - possibly moreso, since a large part of entertainment is trying to predict what folks will be entertained by. The status quo is godly for them, and a predicatable audience is easier to entertain. Regardless, on to the important bit of your post:

One could use the same argument to say that enslavement of other humans is natural. You'd simply need to make the argument two centuries ago. Humans keep slaves, therefore slavery is natural. Marginalization of women throughout history in much of the world has often put them in a position where they had as few rights as slaves do. Also quite natural by this argument. No god forced humans to take other humans as slaves. No god forced men to make women slaves. And yet it happened. All perfectly natural, no?

It has been dreadfully recent that people have started to come to the realization that women as slaves to men, whether it is natural or not, is NOT okay, and this is a realization that is STILL not universally accepted throughout the world. "It is the way it is" is not an excuse or a valid explanation. That's exactly why debates like this are worthwhile. "A heroine can be badass, but she must also be pretty." That's the way it is, sure. WHY is that the way it is? Is that they only way it can be? Is that the way it should be?

Sexualization of women in media is a remnant of womens' previous expected role as servants to men. Women were property in all but name (sometimes in name as well), and part of owning property is bragging about how your property is better than the next guy's. Beauty became a large part of what defined one woman as "better" than another, since women were not expected to excel in things like warfare, scholarly pursuits, and so on. (This isn't to say that there aren't plenty of women who DID excel in those things - but such was not expected, and those exceptions were noted as being, well, exceptional for their time, even when studied today.)

So, beauty became a standard in what makes a woman good, in the eyes of both men and women. That is how it is. Things have changed a lot, now, though. It's become widely recognized that women not only can, but SHOULD excel in pursuits other than homemaking, just as men do.

tl;dr: "Things turned out that way" doesn't equate to "things are the way that they should be". Humans aren't perfect, and can never be perfect, but should always strive for perfection. "It's just the way things are" is never an acceptable answer.

[Remilia_Nightfall]

I never said, or even implied, that the entertainment industry is what has built our gender roles over the years, just that the people within it are as bound by them as anyone - possibly moreso, since a large part of entertainment is trying to predict what folks will be entertained by. The status quo is godly for them, and a predicatable audience is easier to entertain. Regardless, on to the important bit of your post:

One could use the same argument to say that enslavement of other humans is natural. You'd simply need to make the argument two centuries ago. Humans keep slaves, therefore slavery is natural. Marginalization of women throughout history in much of the world has often put them in a position where they had as few rights as slaves do. Also quite natural by this argument. No god forced humans to take other humans as slaves. No god forced men to make women slaves. And yet it happened. All perfectly natural, no?

It has been dreadfully recent that people have started to come to the realization that women as slaves to men, whether it is natural or not, is NOT okay, and this is a realization that is STILL not universally accepted throughout the world. "It is the way it is" is not an excuse or a valid explanation. That's exactly why debates like this are worthwhile. "A heroine can be badass, but she must also be pretty." That's the way it is, sure. WHY is that the way it is? Is that they only way it can be? Is that the way it should be?

Sexualization of women in media is a remnant of womens' previous expected role as servants to men. Women were property in all but name (sometimes in name as well), and part of owning property is bragging about how your property is better than the next guy's. Beauty became a large part of what defined one woman as "better" than another, since women were not expected to excel in things like warfare, scholarly pursuits, and so on. (This isn't to say that there aren't plenty of women who DID excel in those things - but such was not expected, and those exceptions were noted as being, well, exceptional for their time, even when studied today.)

So, beauty became a standard in what makes a woman good, in the eyes of both men and women. That is how it is. Things have changed a lot, now, though. It's become widely recognized that women not only can, but SHOULD excel in pursuits other than homemaking, just as men do.

tl;dr: "Things turned out that way" doesn't equate to "things are the way that they should be". Humans aren't perfect, and can never be perfect, but should always strive for perfection. "It's just the way things are" is never an acceptable answer.

It is right that what is just should be obeyed; it is necessary that what is strongest should be obeyed. Justice without might is helpless; might without justice is tyrannical. Justice without might is denied, because there are always offenders; might without justice is condemned. We must then combine justice and might, and for this end make what is just strong, or what is strong just.

Justice is subject to dispute; might is easily recognized and is not disputed. So we cannot give might to justice, because might has denied justice, and has declared that it is she herself who is just. And thus being unable to make what is just strong, we have made what is strong just.

Blaise Pascal (1623–1662). Thoughts.