Yes, it is a false equivalence - skimpy male armor does not have the same implications as skimpy female armor. It's not true equality, but it will never be revenge because they appeal differently to who they appeal to. Sexualized clothes to some are an invitation (deserving of whatever it provokes) rather than it being an advertisement, which echoes longstanding real world issues I will not elaborate on in this forum. You call it hypocritical revenge because you think we're just trying to flip the script.
We have Drow for that. This is about putting a bare minimum of static noise over something otherwise blaringly obvious. When it's just females sexualized, there is the implication of "deserving whatever they provoke", there to be feasted upon by the eyes and not a serious, capable character. Compared to a male that is not given a compromising implication. When its both males and females sexualized, I can say it's not targeted to one sex. It's "equal".
If sexualization of armor potentially creates an "invitation" of something bad, shouldn't we remove it completely, male or female? If that's the case, it seems the best solution is to remove it completely.
Banning things is just a bandaid for deeper issues. If a game wants to have it, it's my choice whether I want to deal with it or not. And in weighing whether I am interested in a game or not, that can play a part. It's easier for me to ignore the prevalent perception of skimpy female armor when there is skimpy male armor to match.
