Sexy and sexualised aren't the same thing. Only you can decide if you find someone attractive or not, sexualisation isn't quite so subjective.
Which is why boobplate and chainmail bikini fall under types of garments that are meant to sexualize women.
Which is why boobplate and chainmail bikini fall under types of garments that are meant to sexualize women.
And that's bad?
A lot of women and men do though. Heck in the gay KISA thread right now there is a discussion about having the character be muscular.
Muscular being sexy is one thing. Cullen is muscular and I totally don't mind that I usually see him clad in heavy armor. Just the fact that he IS muscular adds to him being physically attractive - him showing off naked torso wouldn't make him sexier though. In fact, it would be kinda weird.
And that's a double standard in those cultures. It shouldn't be fine for one gender to go topless and the other can't.Either both can go topless, or neither.
That's culture for you. It doesn't change the fact that even in our culture naked male torso is generally accepted - naked female torso, much less so.
And that's bad?
In itself? No. But if women are consistently clad in boobplates and chainmail bikini, while their male counterparts are wearing far more sensible armor then we have a problem.
Wearing more sensible armor, which they usually aren't, doesn't stop men from being sexualized. Having hulking arms, being six-foot-four, with super deep voices, etc is still sexualizing.
Muscular being sexy is one thing. Cullen is muscular and I totally don't mind that I usually see him clad in heavy armor. Just the fact that he IS muscular adds to him being physically attractive - him showing off naked torso wouldn't make him sexier though. In fact, it would be kinda weird.
Yeah, it's not like magazines, ads, etc ever made a man without a shirt be a selling point for something and people gobbling it up, thus sexualizing it. 
Look up "sexualized men" and tell me that the majority of images that come up isn't men who are shirtless.
And men going topless sexualizes men.
Not as much as boobplate and chaimail bikini sexualizes women - because nothing in bare chest forcibly brings attention to assets they have.
Still, I'd like to point out how rarely we see male going topless on battlefield in generic fantasy. And in DAI Iron Bull is an exception that proves the rule, shaped by his culture as well as personal preferences.
Not as much as boobplate and chaimail bikini sexualizes women - because nothing in bare chest forcibly brings attention to assets they have.
What assets does boobplate show that a man without a shirt doesn't? I'm genuinely curious. And don't say breasts, because a topless man exposes breasts a lot more than boobplate does.
Wearing more sensible armor, which they usually aren't, doesn't stop men from being sexualized. Having hulking arms, being six-foot-four, with super deep voices, etc is still sexualizing.
Yet that sexualization is not as overt as hypersexualization that happens to women. MOST fictional characters, especially in fantasy or superhero genre, are sexy/sexualized - but while men have hulking arms, are six-foot-four and have super deep voices, women - despite being willowy, curvy with full lips, beautiful eyes and hair, STILL have to have their 'smexyness' underlined by either makeup or less-than-complete costume or armor. Not that it happens at 100% of times, but enough to notice the difference between how both genders are treated.
Muscles can serve two purposes that some people seem to forget here. First of muscles are powerful, they are sign of strenght and they are also genderless, both gender can have muscles (though you don't often see female characters having much of them). Second point is that they can be sexy. But I think the first point still usually is major point why there is muscular guys and topless guys in the fictions, like Dragon Ball Z, those muscles are to show how strong characters are, not how sexy they are ^^
Boobs in majority of cases serve just one purpose and it's sex appeal (though their original purpose is feeding babies, but that you don't really see on fiction). Boobs really aren't sign of strenght and can't really be used to intimidate opponent. Though some earlier argued that they could be used as distraction, but that would only work against weak-minded opponents..
We also need to take into account that men and women are attracted to different qualities in the opposite gender. Men are considered sexy for different reasons than women are. Something that sexualises women wouldn't necessarily sexualise men for the same reason, and vice versa. People seem to be going off of the assumption that 'what's sexy for men =/= what's sexy for women,' and that simply isn't the case.
Attractive qualities in men tend to be signifiers of strength, stability and security. Being muscular is obviously playing into those qualities, but so is wearing a smart well tailored suit. That's because these are identifiers of things like social status and wealth, which play into the stability and security side of things.
What assets does boobplate show that a man without a shirt doesn't? I'm genuinely curious. And don't say breasts, because a topless man exposes breasts a lot more than boobplate does.
Are you going to sit here and say that male boobs = female boobs, as if there was no difference between them?
Don't make me laugh.
If an armor is designed SPECIFICALLY to focus attention on female boobs - even if it's actually dangerous to wear it - then it's obvious what it's for.
Also - you have to get away form this childish mindset that more exposure = more sexiness. There's a reason why latex or tight-fitting leather suit or dress with a cut that reveals female leg up to a thigh is generally considered uber-sexy (or lipstick. Or stilletto shoes) - because it UNDERLINES and accentuates, instead of just showing everything there is.
Not as much as boobplate and chaimail bikini sexualizes women - because nothing in bare chest forcibly brings attention to assets they have.
Yes, it's the same amount of sexualization. And it meant to do just that, forcibly bring attention.
Still, I'd like to point out how rarely we see male going topless on battlefield in generic fantasy. And in DAI Iron Bull is an exception that proves the rule, shaped by his culture as well as personal preferences.
Yet that sexualization is not as overt as hypersexualization that happens to women. MOST fictional characters, especially in fantasy or superhero genre, are sexy/sexualized - but while men have hulking arms, are six-foot-four and have super deep voices, women - despite being willowy, curvy with full lips, beautiful eyes and hair, STILL have to have their 'smexyness' underlined by either makeup or less-than-complete costume or armor. Not that it happens at 100% of times, but enough to notice the difference between how both genders are treated.
Because those are the things woman, for the most part, find attractive about men hypersexualized, in the same way men find curviness sexy. You're just exhibiting a first-class case of double standard. "I mean not only do men have to be sexy looking, they also have to be brave, be covered in scars that don't handicap them, and they always save the day. "
Are you going to sit here and say that male boobs = female boobs, as if there was no difference between them?
There is no difference between them. Male breasts have all the same parts female breasts do.
If an armor is designed SPECIFICALLY to focus attention on female boobs - even if it's actually dangerous to wear it - then it's obvious what it's for.
Who said anything about the armor doing nothing but focus attention to them. There are boobplate armors that just have it as part of the armor. For example Meredith's armor in DA2.
Also - you have to get away form this childish mindset that more exposure = more sexiness. There's a reason why latex or tight-fitting leather suit or dress with a cut that reveals female leg up to a thigh is generally considered uber-sexy (or lipstick. Or stilletto shoes) - because it UNDERLINES and accentuates, instead of just showing everything there is.
I'm being childish, am I? We live in a very sexualized world, and want to know the most common form that takes? Men and women in nothing but their underwear or outerwear that covers as much as underwear. So go ahead, tell me this isn't a thing in our societies. I dare you.
Even your example of skintight clothes is an example of more exposure = more sexiness, because by definition skintight apparel leaves nothing of what's underneath to the imagination, instead exposing all of it.
It doesn't forcibly bring attention, if we established that naked male torso is generally more accepted, even within out culture. Characters like Rambo or Arnie in Terminator are showed with naked chests, but nobody in their right mind would sit here and say that it was done for sex-appeal.
Sex-appeal for whom? The target audience?
This doesn't make any sense. You do realize that what you just said is that shirtless men are proven sexualized as much as women, because that's what that phrase actually means.
Sexualized "as much as women"? Despite the fact that I keep repeating in my comments that male torso isn't anywhere near as sexualized as female torso clad in boobplate/chainmail bikini?
No, hon. I totally understand how people can view naked male torso as sexy - what I keep saying is that it isn't inherently sexy, nor it will ever be an element of design that will sexualize male on the same level as woman clad in near-nonexistent armor.
YET, even though bare chest can be sexy, we don't see many mean flash it unnecessarily on battlefields. Nor we see them frequently in any armor that accentuates their musculature - no deep cuts, oiled muscles, corsets or else. Definitely not as frequently as females are.
Because those are the things woman, for the most part, find attractive about men hypersexualized, in the same way men find curviness sexy. You're just exhibiting a first-class case of double standard.
I love how you accuse me of double-standard, yet look what you're doing (subconsciously, I guess) in your own comment.
Finding curves sexy is different from HYPERSEXUALIZING something.
"I mean not only do men have to be sexy looking, they also have to be brave, be covered in scars that don't handicap them, and they always save the day. "
What a beautiful strawman!
I think it's childish for someone to suggest that more skin on a female is somehow more sexual than a bare chested male. It's still skin regardless and it's actually sexist to suggest that men with skin showing is more acceptable than female skin.
1:I say it isn't fallacious (if the terms are clarified)and you will need to explain why it is.
2:If the constraints stopping both me and a dragon from flying are the same then eliminating those constraints should allow us both to fly given the right conditions.That was my train of thought.I would like you to point out why you think it isn't valid.
It's fallacious because A. the game is not even trying to adhere to any kind of realism in it's portrayal of clothing and armor, otherwise a good number of armor sets would be entirely unwearable by either gender, and because B. it's a video game made by human beings, thus made in a stylized fashion of whatever idea they are trying to convey.
Ignoring that dragons are not real and don't have a physical form to compare to a human being.... No. I'll use birds as an example. Birds have wings. Birds fly. By your logic, a human with wings should also be able to fly like a bird, because the human has wings like the bird does, completely disregarding every other physical difference that allows a bird to fly but not a human. Birds have less dense, practically hollow bone structures and much less muscle tissue than any human. Birds are also much lighter than any average human and tire much slower. Most people don't have a lot of stamina, which would be rapidly consumed if one were to fly by flapping wings and carrying a 160-pound human. The human skeleton in no way allows for flight.
It doesn't forcibly bring attention, if we established that naked male torso is generally more accepted, even within out culture. Characters like Rambo or Arnie in Terminator are showed with naked chests, but nobody in their right mind would sit here and say that it was done for sex-appeal.
Sex-appeal for whom? The target audience?
You don't think that heterosexual women (and homosexual men) find muscular men attractive? Why do you think Chris Hemsworth takes his shirt off at least once in both Thor movies (I believe he does it in the Avengers as well)? Why else do you think every other scene of Twilight is Taylor Lautner with his shirt off? To appeal to people who like that kind of thing -- women (gay men can like it as well, but it's clear that they are targeting women).
There is no difference between them. Male breasts have all the same parts female breasts do.
Except for shape and function, which anyone who had a basic course in biology and anthropology can tell you.
Who said anything about the armor doing nothing but focus attention to them. There are boobplate armors that just have it as part of the armor. For example Meredith's armor in DA2.
Hahaha! Having a bit of a curved area around breasts doesn't constitute a boobplate - not the one people have most issues with.
Unless this is "boobplate" as well.
I'm being childish, am I? We live in a very sexualized world, and want to know the most common form that takes? Men and women in nothing but their underwear or outerwear that covers as much as underwear. So go ahead, tell me this isn't a thing in our societies. I dare you.
Yes you are, if for you more exposure of the body means more sexiness.
Also lol, no - men and women in nothing but their underwear are just easiest to point out - they're the crudest examples. Yet look at high-fashion shoots or high-end product adverts: hardly any nakedness, yet everything is done to underline sex-appeal. Same for many other products that don't go the '"full exposure" route and base mostly on body language or well-tailored clothing.
Even your example of skintight clothes is an example of more exposure = more sexiness, because by definition skintight apparel leaves nothing of what's underneath to the imagination, instead exposing all of it.
Yes, because my other example of high thigh cut dress, lipstics or stiletoes is TOTALLY "more exposure". Cherrypicking much?
Also - if skintight apparel leaves nothing to imagination (which it totally does, especially that it can enhance figure with clever tailoring or cover imperfections), wouldn't Bull be sexier in tight-fitting leather vest, for example?
It doesn't forcibly bring attention, if we established that naked male torso is generally more accepted, even within out culture. Characters like Rambo or Arnie in Terminator are showed with naked chests, but nobody in their right mind would sit here and say that it was done for sex-appeal.
Sex-appeal for whom? The target audience?
The ****? Yes, they would. In fact, it's done only to sexualize. It's something women comment on constantly, and the fact that it's abnormal does nothing but draw attention.
Sexualized "as much as women"? Despite the fact that I keep repeating in my comments that male torso isn't anywhere near as sexualized as female torso clad in boobplate/chainmail bikini?
Which is why the comment doesn't make sense. You are the one who said it, so I thought I should let you know. It's true, of course, but that's obviously not what you meant.
No, hon. I totally understand how people can view naked male torso as sexy - what I keep saying is that it isn't inherently sexy, nor it will ever be an element of design that will sexualize male on the same level as woman clad in near-nonexistent armor.
****** also aren't inherently sexy. There are thousands upon thousands of culture in the world that do not leave the chest bare in an attempt to be sexy. However, ours, as in the West, is not one of those cultures. The male chest is as sexualized as the female one. The more muscle the better.
YET, even though bare chest can be sexy, we don't see many mean flash it unnecessarily on battlefields. Nor we see them frequently in any armor that accentuates their musculature - no deep cuts, oiled muscles, corsets or else. Definitely not as frequently as females are.
Every light and medium armor ever made in most video games begs to differ. More frequently than females really, as most women on battlefields are usually civilians more often than not. Barechested, skintight, etc. That happens. A lot. The difference is men don't have campaigns against it so it continues to happen.
I love how you accuse me of double-standard, yet look what you're doing (subconsciously, I guess) in your own comment.
Finding curves sexy is different from HYPERSEXUALIZING something.
Dear God,... that would be the point literally everyone is trying to stress to you, though you have been going on to ignore it. That point being: Men are also hypersexualized.
What a beautiful strawman!
That would actually be a rhetorical device called an echo, where I, much like you, took things I randomly found that I might think women find attractive and blurted them out as if saying that it was more sexualized suddenly made it an infallible truth. The fact that it was in quotation marks stresses that, as quotation marks are wont to do.
@ midnight_tea: Can you drop the condescending attitude, please?
I think it's childish for someone to suggest that more skin on a female is somehow more sexual than a bare chested male. It's still skin regardless and it's actually sexist to suggest that men with skin showing is more acceptable than female skin.
LOL, only I didn't suggest that at all - so please actually READ my comments instead of producing ridiculous strawmen.
@ midnight_tea: Can you drop the condescending attitude, please?
LOL, only I didn't suggest that at all - so please actually READ my comments instead of producing ridiculous strawmen.
Do you always get so aggressive with your posts tea when someone disagrees with your position 2 pages later?
At least we got to the bottom of why people are opposing boobplate. It has nothing to do with practicality and all to do with taste. People actually oppose it because it "sexualises women." of course, this was obvious from the beginning to anyone with half a brain. The realism argument just has to many holes to work as a real cover.
Retour en haut