Sexy "Power Armor", am I 'juvenile' for liking it? (a response to recent Kill La Kill concepts)

Toy Master Typhus

New member
Oct 20, 2011
134
0
0
bobleponge said:
It is 100% juvenile.

However: there's nothing wrong with liking juvenile stuff, as long as you acknowledge that you just like it because it's a hot girl in skimpy clothing, and don't get super defensive when other people are bothered by it.
Except it is wrong to like that stuff. If want the nerd culture to change for the better we have to stop liking that stuff and shame those who do.
 

Muspelheim

New member
Apr 7, 2011
2,023
0
0
Well, no, not really. I don't know enough about the example to really judge. Don't know if I can even if I did.

It depends entirely on the setting, I'd say. It depends on what level of armour realism the setting operates on.

If it's a more fantastical á la Conan, where armour is entirely optional, body defense isn't really a concern and the breezy armours is evenly distributed across genders and classes, then I'm onboard. Leopard loincloths, please.

But if the setting is trying to have an air of realism to its combat, where armour is truly needed, it just comes off as rather juvenile fan service. It's when all the boys are decked up in somewhat reasonable armour head-to-toe while all the girls go for the lovely breeze that it gets stupid. Or when someone (usually an Elf) is excemt from the semi-realistic armour setting just 'cause.

In short; in some settings, one bullet or a mace strike in that big, open midriff would kill her at once. In others, it wouldn't. Sexualized armour design of the good kind takes what sort of setting it is in, and what tone the story want to be.

EDIT: Added some picture-aid to make myself a bit more clear.

A setting where armour matters. Keeping it sensible, for all the characters, is key. It's the armour "rules" chosen and laid down.

http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa192/Nanostorms_photos/FgGRHQmi.jpg

A setting where armour doesn't mean that much. If you're awesome enough, you won't get struck. If you are struck, it's not too much of a problem.

Smex it up to your heart's content, just be a bit creative with it.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/conanintro.jpg
 

blank0000

New member
Oct 3, 2007
382
0
0
The title question:

My stance is...what do you think?

It's more juvenile to look to others to justify your sexual preferences as opposed to going "huh...that IS kinda hawt...ok then". You already said how you feel about it. Asking the internet to judge you is a bit unnecessary.

My thoughts on the concept art:
I wouldn't call the art high brow. It's designed to be sexually in your face. I generally don't get into that sort of thing. My reaction is the same as the one I had for kings crown. Shock, an understanding that said authors where looking to shock me, and then rejection of said material as a result.
 

Voulan

New member
Jul 18, 2011
1,258
0
0
Smeatza said:
Zhukov said:
Dude. Just... just don't.

She's wearing a fetish outfit. That's what it is. That's what it was designed as.
Yeah, I don't think it's too farfetched to call it a fetish outfit.
But that doesn't prevent it from being armor.
It's fetish armor.

Zhukov said:
Hell, you basically said it yourself:

And like I say above, I don't think women are (almost) exclusively dressed this way in any medium besides porn.
Now, what does that tell you about what we're looking at here, eh?
That it should have an age rating of 18+, perhaps 15+.

Voulan said:
I wouldn't use the Romans as an example, though. The reason why the majority were mostly uncovered was because it was a policy that you had to purchase your own armour, and unless you were from an Elite family that had money at their disposal (which was a massive minority), your armour was going to be on the lighter side. Those that could afford good armour did so because the Romans prided prestige and presentation. If everyone could, they would be covered up more. You also have to bear in mind that they usually fought in hot climates, and had to travel by foot to their battles carrying all their weapons (again, only the Elite were able to afford horses).
Okay, fair enough, but there are plenty of standard armor sets of historical soldiers I can point to that were much less than full plate mail. I simply chose the Romans as it was iconic.

Voulan said:
And I highly doubt when an artist draws a female in armour he is considering that she is doing so to present an image of herself - notably, he is dressing her in the image he wants to convey.
That was my point. Artistic license is taken with the non traditional image, but the act of promoting that image (in this case some kind of sexualised fantasy warrior) is reasonable.

Voulan said:
But anyway, as you say, the main purpose of armour is to protect, and that outfit fails completely in all those regards. As Ellie says in Borderlands, "It's not as though the bad guys will only aim for my saucy bits."
Well I don't think it completely fails, it covers like 30%-40% of her body, so it's at least that effective. Plus I'm sure you've seen fictional scenes before where a person uses just a small bit of armor (bracers for example) to defend themselves when attacked.
Anyway I think that is all besides the point, from what I've read about said anime, the school uniform is possessed and grants her superpowers. Can you call something armor if it provides protection in the form of superpowers? I think so.

Voulan said:
Deliberately revealing the parts of the female body considered sexual is pretty much pandering, however you slice it. And I am using pandering to your definition there, as I believe it is only keeping a certain audience in mind here and appealing to them almost insultingly.
It is the artists right to appeal to whichever audience they wish, as exclusively as they wish. You are effectively advocating censorship here.

Voulan said:
I'm over generalising for the sake of the point here, in that a vast majority of female characters in most media (and extremely in anime) are deliberately dressed in this way.
You do realise you just made the same extreme generalisation again right?

Voulan said:
And in doing so, we are being invited to use the male gaze on her - a term coined by scholar Judith Butler - which allows us to objectify her as an Other.
The term "male gaze" isn't really applicable here. Well it is, but not in any useful sense.
Male gaze refers to when the audience is pushed into the shoes of a heterosexual man. If a work has been designed with heterosexual men in mind, it stands to reason that it's going to have a "male gaze."
This is no bad thing, unless you are saying that it's a bad thing to create works with heterosexual men in mind.
Which is ludicrous.
This is only an issue when the majority of fictional works have a "male gaze," when it is unavoidable.
And as much as you like to exaggerate, that's not the case.
Plus use of the term objectification in this sense (the fictional sense) is wrong, exploitative is the word you are looking for.

Voulan said:
She simply becomes a collection of body parts for us to oogle and desire. There is no other point to the outfit.
Yeah....so?
"Oh no, people are ogling that inanimate object that doesn't actually exist, call the village elders."

Voulan said:
And this kind of degradation is everywhere
Degradation of ink on paper?
Photon degradation?

Voulan said:
- if you're not seeing it as the majority, then perhaps you're not really looking for it.
If you are seeing it as the majority then perhaps you're seeing it where it isn't, or you're holding a small subsection of media as being indicative of the whole thing.

Voulan said:
If its sexiness is in a completely unnecessary context - like killing people, of all things - then it is just stupid. Especially if the men are dressed completely sensibly.
And yet you pass judgement on this character design without knowing the context.
The actions of a character are not the only thing that can be reflected in their design, fiction would be an incredibly boring thing if that were the case.
And how do you know that this kind of costume is typical of this anime? Google images doesn't think it is.
In fact google images shows us three male characters, accompanied by two female characters in much more realistic battle clothing, the same as the male characters pictured.

Voulan said:
And as you even say at the end there, women are dressed like this in porn; so what does this outfit say?
Like I said to Zhukov, that the anime it features in should be an 18+, perhaps 15+. Outside of that it proves nothing and is frankly a silly and prudish point to make.

Look at I want to make it perfectly clear. I'm not saying that this work of fiction doesn't have any content worthy of criticism, or any potential to be insensitive or offend.
But to decide that it does, simply because of a single costume design (note costume design, not character design), before the work has even been release and we've actually had an opportunity to ascertain the context, is judgmental and assumptive.
And even if it does have content worth of criticism, even if it does offend some people, that doesn't mean it has no right to exist. Or has inherent ethical issues.
I'm on an iPhone, so sorry I can't break up your post.

Anyway, while I can only advocate for the Romans and Greeks, I'm certain that other armour sets are created with the same thought in mind - mass production with the least possible cost. So, I wouldn't use it to advocate for less armour being more effective.

And on that note, 30-40% effective? Really? That's not even remotely going to keep anyone alive, especially when the particular outfit in question leaves her entire abdomen and back exposed, which is where all the organs are. You can't possibly defend this as reasonable armour. Also, I wouldn't call this artistic license for a non-traditional image - as Grey argued in his last Critical Miss, when the design is the lowest denominator in what people like (strong white males, sexy females) then it's not exactly ground-breaking design.

Male gaze is completely applicable here. And no, it doesn't just mean something created for a male perspective. It involves looking at others from the superior male perspective and objectifying them as a result. For a woman, that means being degraded to a sex object to be looked at, rather than an actual person. So yes, objectification is the actual term to use here. And while this character isn't real, we need to discourage reducing women to their apparently only sellable parts, and looking at them as mere sex objects. And I'm not advocating censorship, I'm asking for some awareness - it's frustrating as a female that most of the options for female characters are just like this. If it was the reverse, would you not find it slightly depressing? I know Jim talked about how annoying the "censorship!" accusations are in one of his videos, but I forget which. I mean, the massive plethora of rationally dressed white males compared to the few female examples is staggering, and asking for a bit more consideration isn't going to ruin your vidja gaems.

And no, her design may not reflect her character, but then when she's constantly dressed like a fetish doll, everything she does is undermined by the male gaze. How are we meant to take her seriously with half her arse hanging out?

But I do agree that I can't rage at something that hasn't been released yet or simply because it exists. The OP was only asking about this one design, though, and asking about whether it is morally acceptable to like sexy female designs in general. I can't dictate what people should like - my frustration is aimed more at the constant use of these tropes in game/anime/film/advertising, with only really profit in mind. I mean, I'm sure not all guys like your standard female sex symbol design, don't you feel somewhat insulted that they assume that of you?

I'm not offended necessarily, just disappointed that this is so typical. And when we ask for something more rational, we get told that its an exceptional case or that we're screaming for censorship. How about we agree to disagree? I hate having Internet arguments.
 

archvile93

New member
Sep 2, 2009
2,564
0
0
Huh, so that's what Shadow the hedgehog would look like as a human and a woman.

OT: I don't necessarily mind absurdly revealing armor, but if you want me to take a setting seriously you'd better make it reasonably protective, or give some kind of justification for it (maybe a wizard made it or something.)
 

Toy Master Typhus

New member
Oct 20, 2011
134
0
0
bobleponge said:
Toy Master Typhus said:
bobleponge said:
It is 100% juvenile.

However: there's nothing wrong with liking juvenile stuff, as long as you acknowledge that you just like it because it's a hot girl in skimpy clothing, and don't get super defensive when other people are bothered by it.
Except it is wrong to like that stuff. If want the nerd culture to change for the better we have to stop liking that stuff and shame those who do.
While agree with you that nerd culture needs way less of this juvenile stuff, I don't think anyone needs to be "shamed" (unless they're being a dick about it). People just need to acknowledge that this stuff is, in fact, pretty immature and juvenile, and stop defending it so vehemently.
The only reason they do defend it vehemently is because we obviously haven't punished them enough for liking it. The only way to move forward is by expelling these niche's and the only way to do that is to shame them into non-existence. Acknowledging the problem doesn't solve the problem, we have to eliminate the problem.

Desert Punk said:
Dear god if nerd culture is going to get that pretentious and self important stop the bus, I want off.

Just because stuff like this exists doesn't mean other great works of art cant exist along side them.

Is Firefly any less awesome because it exists along side Jersey Shore?

If we REALLY want nerd culture to change for the better we have to accept there are niches for everyone, and move on with our damn lives instead of making a big deal and shaming people over every lil thing that offends us.
But these niches aren't really niches and making us homogenous, and we must move on from being an all seclusive group, and the only way to do that is by getting rid of these niches. The only way to do that is to shame the people for having them. We have too many straight white cis dudes and need to thin it out.
 

ForumSafari

New member
Sep 25, 2012
572
0
0
Toy Master Typhus said:
No you shouldn't like it and it is progress that you feel shame for liking it.

We need to end Juvenile and sexist attitudes in gaming and the only way we are going to do that is with shaming people.
The only problem with your idea is that someone feeling shame about something is entirely on them, they have to consent to feeling ashamed and you trying to make them ashamed of something they're just not ashamed of isn't going to work.

Just as a secondary point, the message relies entirely on the integrity of the person delivering it.
 

Skeleon

New member
Nov 2, 2007
5,410
0
0
It is friggin' useless and juvenile as far as armour goes, yes. Somebody called it lingerie and that's perfect; the shoulder things don't change that. I suppose it depends what the purpose of it is. If it's a "magical girl"-kind of anime thing, then actual physical protection doesn't really play into it too much, though, eh? Depending on the threats faced at least?
I dunno. I can't take that assortment of strings seriously as protective gear, but then I'm not an anime-fan. I prefer more practical made-up armour. Like the Power Armor from Fallout. And you can't even tell whether a person is male or female in those unless they take their helmet off or speak.
 

EternallyBored

Terminally Apathetic
Jun 17, 2013
1,434
0
0
Desert Punk said:
Toy Master Typhus said:
Desert Punk said:
Dear god if nerd culture is going to get that pretentious and self important stop the bus, I want off.

Just because stuff like this exists doesn't mean other great works of art cant exist along side them.

Is Firefly any less awesome because it exists along side Jersey Shore?

If we REALLY want nerd culture to change for the better we have to accept there are niches for everyone, and move on with our damn lives instead of making a big deal and shaming people over every lil thing that offends us.
But these niches aren't really niches and making us homogenous, and we must move on from being an all seclusive group, and the only way to do that is by getting rid of these niches. The only way to do that is to shame the people for having them. We have too many straight white cis dudes and need to thin it out.
Or you know, we could add more niches for those who want to join in instead of being bigots and trying to shame and change people who are already interested in things just because we dont like them.

If you had told me five years ago that nerd culture would be heavily influenced by a girls tv show about ponies and friendship I would have scoffed and rolled my eyes. But guess what? It is a massive influence and part of the culture now. And who had to be shamed to add something inclusive with strong female characters? Absolutely no one.
Yeah I usually bang on about how the movie, comics, and game industry need some diversity (and more risk taking in general, because let's face it even their standby cliches are usually pretty bland at this point), but shaming people for liking something isn't the right way to go about it. It just makes the people who like it hyper-defensive and creates ardent opponents to any suggestions of diversity because they think it means what they like will be considered bad by default. Cheesy pandering like the what the Op talks about are still perfectly valid entertainment choices, maybe not what I'd watch, the female characters look really underage, and loli stuff just makes me feel dirty, but that's a personal opinion and I'd hardly judge the OP for his taste in fanservice cartoons. On the flipside, despite the internet's hateboner for things like Twilight and 50 Shades of Gray, they should still be able to exist as valid forms of entertainment designed to titillate women.

It's a tough proposition to make, since your basically asking a company to risk millions of dollars on an untested venture, especially in today's shaky economy. People on the internet talk about diversity because they have a demand that they don't feel is being adequately supplied by the free market, but most companies are still going to be wary of wading into untested or rarely tested waters.
 
Apr 24, 2008
3,912
0
0
Toy Master Typhus said:
bobleponge said:
Toy Master Typhus said:
bobleponge said:
It is 100% juvenile.

However: there's nothing wrong with liking juvenile stuff, as long as you acknowledge that you just like it because it's a hot girl in skimpy clothing, and don't get super defensive when other people are bothered by it.
Except it is wrong to like that stuff. If want the nerd culture to change for the better we have to stop liking that stuff and shame those who do.
While agree with you that nerd culture needs way less of this juvenile stuff, I don't think anyone needs to be "shamed" (unless they're being a dick about it). People just need to acknowledge that this stuff is, in fact, pretty immature and juvenile, and stop defending it so vehemently.
The only reason they do defend it vehemently is because we obviously haven't punished them enough for liking it. The only way to move forward is by expelling these niche's and the only way to do that is to shame them into non-existence. Acknowledging the problem doesn't solve the problem, we have to eliminate the problem.

Desert Punk said:
Dear god if nerd culture is going to get that pretentious and self important stop the bus, I want off.

Just because stuff like this exists doesn't mean other great works of art cant exist along side them.

Is Firefly any less awesome because it exists along side Jersey Shore?

If we REALLY want nerd culture to change for the better we have to accept there are niches for everyone, and move on with our damn lives instead of making a big deal and shaming people over every lil thing that offends us.
But these niches aren't really niches and making us homogenous, and we must move on from being an all seclusive group, and the only way to do that is by getting rid of these niches. The only way to do that is to shame the people for having them. We have too many straight white cis dudes and need to thin it out.
I honestly have trouble telling if this is sarcasm or real opinion.

Why is it "juvenile"?
Why is it "wrong to like it"?

"The only reason they do defend it vehemently is because we obviously haven't punished them enough for liking it. The only way to move forward is by expelling these niche's and the only way to do that is to shame them into non-existence. Acknowledging the problem doesn't solve the problem, we have to eliminate the problem."

... Punished? What the hell is this arrogant nonsense? Who died and left you commissioner of the taste police? If you want new content, support new content. If you want to banish existing content and niches, then you're advocating censorship. At least acknowledge that that's where your head is at.

"We have too many straight white cis dudes and need to thin it out."

What does this mean? Out with the old, in with the new? Does this work like a nightclub? If we let too many people in without pushing others out are we breaking fire regulations or something? This isn't behaviour befitting of the supposed "good guys", you know?

The things you protest are supported by a market of willing buyers, that's how they continue to be. This is the test that new content and new ideas has to face. No amount of talk can circumvent this. For fucks sake can someone just make this hypothetically amazing and inclusive IP so we can see if the shit floats!?
 

Smeatza

New member
Dec 12, 2011
934
0
0
Voulan said:
Anyway, while I can only advocate for the Romans and Greeks, I'm certain that other armour sets are created with the same thought in mind - mass production with the least possible cost. So, I wouldn't use it to advocate for less armour being more effective.
Well all I was showing is that it's still armor within the terms of the anime.

Voulan said:
And on that note, 30-40% effective? Really? That's not even remotely going to keep anyone alive, especially when the particular outfit in question leaves her entire abdomen and back exposed, which is where all the organs are. You can't possibly defend this as reasonable armour.
Well I can with the two points I gave before.
1. I've seen plenty of scenes where somebody who's almost completely unarmored uses just a small piece of armor to defend themselves (bracers for example) and often it is a sound stylistic choice.
2. The uniform gives her superpowers. Superman/spiderman/etc. could go into battle buck naked for all they care, conventional armor would do nothing for them.

Voulan said:
Also, I wouldn't call this artistic license for a non-traditional image - as Grey argued in his last Critical Miss, when the design is the lowest denominator in what people like (strong white males, sexy females) then it's not exactly ground-breaking design.
And if that artist wishes to use cliched or frequently used design choices that is their right.
There's no rule that states "artistic freedom of expression is only allowed when it's original."
After all, landscape painting was popularised by turner in the early 1800's. But we don't discount modern landscape paintings as pandering or unoriginal.

Voulan said:
Male gaze is completely applicable here. And no, it doesn't just mean something created for a male perspective. It involves looking at others from the superior male perspective and objectifying them as a result.
I believe you are confusing factors commonly associated with male gaze, with male gaze itself. Male gaze is a very general term. And sexual objectification isn't the only thing that's indicative of male gaze.

Voulan said:
For a woman, that means being degraded to a sex object to be looked at, rather than an actual person. So yes, objectification is the actual term to use here.
No, no it's not. It's a term people have started throwing around recently because it sounds worse and more urgent than exploitative.
When blaxploitation was all the rage people didn't say they were objectifying black people and stereotypes, they were exploiting them. Here it is the same thing, you cannot objectify a fictional character, but you can exploit stereotypes and real life issues in an insensitive or offensive manner.

Voulan said:
And while this character isn't real, we need to discourage reducing women to their apparently only sellable parts, and looking at them as mere sex objects.
Well it's a good job we're talking about ink on paper and not a woman then.

Voulan said:
And I'm not advocating censorship, I'm asking for some awareness -
You're saying "these kind of depictions should not be allowed to exist in volume (correct me if I'm wrong)."

Voulan said:
it's frustrating as a female that most of the options for female characters are just like this.
Again, your extreme over-exaggeration does your argument a disservice.

Voulan said:
If it was the reverse, would you not find it slightly depressing? I know Jim talked about how annoying the "censorship!" accusations are in one of his videos, but I forget which. I mean, the massive plethora of rationally dressed white males compared to the few female examples is staggering, and asking for a bit more consideration isn't going to ruin your vidja gaems.
Well considering it's not as bad as you make out, this is a dishonest base for a question.
Markets will always have certain trends, those trends may not be to the liking of every consumer. The potential issues with representation of female characters is in the frequency of sexualisation or exploitation of said characters. But if you have to exaggerate and cherry pick your examples to exhibit this trend then the problem probably isn't as bad as you think it is.
I hate many things about Hollywood action movies, so I avoid them. But I don't get annoyed by the fact they're the most popular genre that has the most money spent on it, I just don't watch them. And there are plently of alternate choices that cater to my needs.

Voulan said:
And no, her design may not reflect her character, but then when she's constantly dressed like a fetish doll,
Well she isn't constantly dressed as a fetish doll, that's a combat transformation costume.

Voulan said:
everything she does is undermined by the male gaze. How are we meant to take her seriously with half her arse hanging out?
Perhaps you aren't meant to take her seriously, or perhaps this particular anime wasn't created with you in mind.
Why is it you think fictional works should pander to your desires and no to the desires of other crowds?
And again, if a piece of fiction is designed for males, it's going to have a male gaze (because of how general the term is), that is no bad thing.

Voulan said:
But I do agree that I can't rage at something that hasn't been released yet or simply because it exists. The OP was only asking about this one design, though, and asking about whether it is morally acceptable to like sexy female designs in general. I can't dictate what people should like - my frustration is aimed more at the constant use of these tropes in game/anime/film/advertising, with only really profit in mind. I mean, I'm sure not all guys like your standard female sex symbol design, don't you feel somewhat insulted that they assume that of you?
Hey the design in question isn't to my personal tastes at all. And this is what confuses me, because if I was forced to have designs like that in my video games/movies/tv shows I would be pissed. But I'm not. There are plenty of more realistic, dark, gritty fictional works (note, my criteria is much more specific than just "no sexualisation") that cater to my needs and do not contain any sexualisation for sexualsation's sake. They may not be as popular, they may not be AAA, but I'm fine with that.
To me, a lot of the time it seems like people are complaining about certain genres, certain subsets of fiction as if they are the whole thing.
I will say one thing though, I would like to see more highly sexualised male characters, specifically villains.
Kuja from FF9 is one of my favourite villains of all time and I would like to see more like him.

Voulan said:
I'm not offended necessarily, just disappointed that this is so typical. And when we ask for something more rational, we get told that its an exceptional case or that we're screaming for censorship. How about we agree to disagree? I hate having Internet arguments.
I really think your perception is skewed. I'm not saying this kind of stuff is "exceptional" but it certainly isn't "the majority."
For example (I've done this before for other such discussions):

Grand Theft Auto V
The Elder Scrolls Anthology
Pro Evolution Soccer 2014
Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Summoner - Soul Hackers
Harvest Moon 3D: A New Beginning
Foul Play
Realms of Arkania: Blade of Destiny
Recovery: Search and Rescue Simulation
Hot Wheels: World's Best Driver

That is gamespot's list of games being released this week, less than half have the potential (the ones in bold have potential) to contain sexualised characters. Of those that have potential only a few I would estimate actually contain said sexualisation. Of those, a few would have justified sexualisation.

And when the logical implication of your points is "we shouldn't allow this stuff to exist, or exist in such volumes" you are effectively advocating censorship.
 

PFCboom

New member
Sep 20, 2012
187
0
0
This is called going out to the shed and back. Hopefully, this little aside will make sense in context, with a little explanation.
Army dude here. Our gear is being constantly altered and tweaked for this or that purpose, and recently we've had a trend towards armor efficiency. That is, having the best protection while not hampering maneuverability. After all, one can pile on as much armor as you want, but if you're trapped in a half-destroyed vehicle and absolutely need to get out (insurgents have explosives, for example) then your armor is just going to get you killed.
Now we've gone out, let's come back to the topic.

Scanty power armor could be called an extension or conclusion to this line of thinking. I know it's not the most logical conclusion, but if it's (air-quote) power (air-quote) armor, then it's possible to have effective damage mitigation without negatively affecting maneuverability, and thus, offensive powers.

Let's take another trip out to the shed, shall we?
Scarlet Blade is a game that has gotten a lot of criticism for its shameless T&A. Part of it is the lingerie with stats. Yup. Power Panties. And yet, it makes a kind of strange sense. Underwear is the thing that is omnipresent in games, right? Seen or unseen, everybody wears undies. And if we can have games where earrings, trinkets and shoes can have stats and abilities and effects, why not the base layer of clothing?
And now we go back to the topic.

If we have a set precedent for small items and a base layer of clothing to have powers, then why can't small armor be every bit as effective as gear that covers every inch of the body?

Again, I acknowledge that this isn't flawless rationale, but only if you don't have some frame of reference for it, hence the "out to the shed and back" approach. Or maybe I'm just crazy and a colossal pervert beyond my own self-awareness, which is entirely possible.
 

shinyaoheera

New member
Sep 15, 2013
1
0
0
About the concept in the OP:
-It's not an armor; it's not even meant to be "clothing". It's called "human/uniform" fusion because it's... a fusion, the girl and the living clothing are meant to become one.
-The work is self-aware; they aren't playing it as practical or sensible and the girl hates how she looks. She even goes the lenghts to cover herself with a cloak so people don't see how ridiculous it is.
-It's not meant to provide protection... it's a super-form, like the Dragon Ball Super Saiyan. So the "clothing" is irrelevant since she gains God-like abilities and, like I said, the idea isn't that she is wearing the clothing. In fact, fashion is one of the main themes of the story and the catchphrase is a pun in Japanese that goes "will you wear or be worn?".
-Finally, it's a cartoony surreal show that has no pretentions about being "mature": http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x14o2oo_tv%E3%82%A2%E3%83%8B%E3%83%A1-%E3%82%AD%E3%83%AB%E3%83%A9%E3%82%AD%E3%83%AB-%E6%9C%80%E6%96%B0pv-full-hd-1080p
 

redmoretrout

New member
Oct 27, 2011
293
0
0
Toy Master Typhus said:
No you shouldn't like it and it is progress that you feel shame for liking it.

We need to end Juvenile and sexist attitudes in gaming and the only way we are going to do that is with shaming people.
YEAH!! We'll publicly shame/humiliate people in the name in the name of equality and tolerance. You have the best ideas.

But, to the point of course the OP shouldn't be ashamed or embarrassed. The truth is that sex sells, and nothing will ever change that.
 

Xanadu84

New member
Apr 9, 2008
2,946
0
0
It's not disgusting if you understand that it is, at its heart, mild porn. It's fine to like porn. You can look at tits and enjoy it all you want, thats perfectly reasonable. If you also like the design, the aesthetic appeal and all they, hey, thats fine too. No one said that porn HAS to be terrible artistically. Think whatever you want about it, just understand that beating at the heart of this particular beast is a heart of "People (Mostly guys) like looking at tits". And when people assume that its going to be stupid, remember that its pretty easy to assume that Porn is going to be stupid, and thats not a crazy expectation to have. So don't feel bad about likeing it, just don't try to dance around the subject: Its mild porn. You like it. No big deal.
 

SmokingBomber465

New member
Mar 5, 2012
44
0
0
Its a very interesting design! No you're not juvenile, its a pretty cool concept, I like it too and also not in the "in the pants" way hah
 

WickederCentaur

New member
Nov 26, 2009
14
0
0
Two words. Wonder Woman.
A one-piece, strapless bathing suit, a tiara, some slave bracers and a set of go-go boots. That's all she needed. Sometimes we forget that dexterity mods go into a character's armor class, and for the most part, anime characters don't get hit. It doesn't even matter how much armor they wear most of the time when the blow hits them either. The blow will deal as much damage as the artist wants it to. Besides that, it's all an aesthetic thing and the numbers are all that matters. Sure, probability states that the common soldier wearing that will be made holier than the Pope's Swiss cheese, but in the media it's portrayed in, luck and the infinite lottery plays in their favor 9 times out of 10. If the artist want plate mail bikinis, by all means. I mean, sexualized male fighting is usually just cloth and leather. Why not sexualized female fighting be scanty plate?