Women and Armor!

[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.