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.
But you were the one who implied sexualized armor potentially creates harm. Band aid or not, shouldn’t it be removed even at the expense of some artistic creativity if it will prevent some future violence?
You may ignore it but others may not.
I've already answered your question. The metaphor means that you can put a bandaid on it, but it still won't stop the bleeding. An example would be Bioware and it's Andromeda graphical glitches. The bandaid of "let's stop making pretty women" censored staff from speaking up about horrendous animation glitches. Super reductive thinking is the wrong approach and just isn't capable of solving a deeper issue.
Originally Posted by Nyloth
You keep talking about git armor. So I will say again, Lae's open legs look good, in a way it (maybe) sexualizes her. But the skirt on men looks silly, to sexualize their you need to remove the upper part of the armor and open the chest, not the legs. In fact, if you left legs open, it wouldn't be the same. Women will look sexy in this, and men will look stupid, for most people. So if you want to sexualize both types of armor, you need to make them DIFFERENT. The effect will be completely different for different genders..
Fun fact, I'm pretty sure gits themselves have their legs open in that armor right now. Why do you think not? Did you meet them at the bridge?
I can easily perceive Lae's armor as only incidentally sexy - it's half plate intended only to armor the upper part of the body. Again, I can't change the fact that humanity as a whole find female legs (and ass - her ass is also out lol) more attractive than male legs - so a woman in the aforementioned "Spartan" armor will have sex appeal to most people. But it's harder to perceive this design choice as only incidental (on what could be practical armor of a dexterous fighter) and more as an intentional "lets see how we can get away with having her fight with her ass out", when the males get leather wraps on the legs and have no in-lore reason to require more protection than the females. They are just as lanky as the females, lending to the same dexterous fighting style. I personally see it as a nuanced case where sexualizing the male upper torso could work, but simply removing the leather wraps allows one to remove the possible exploitative nature of it from mind. Again, my male Gith looks like a hobo in half plate. This armor could be meant to glorify an agile warrior (not necessarily sexualize) first and foremost.
Originally Posted by sahardima
For me, it depends on the character I play. So sexy cloths are ok, unsexy too. All I want is to have a choice. So if a female armor look like this:
Then male armor should look like this or similiar:
A few sets of diffrent armors for both.
I very much agree! And I think these are good examples. My fav class is Barbarian so I love the first two pics especially.