Still Sexism in costume choices? Really?

Well, even if we allow the outlandish premise that women are expected to wear next to nothing now, which I do not feel is remotely the case, especially with "**** shaming" as prevalent as it is, the rest of his argument doesn't follow at all.

Zombie Man has defined "Reverse Victorian Sexism" as women must wear next to nothing, men must be dressed from head to toe. He contrasts this to Victorian sensibilities in which women must be covered from head to toe.

This implies that in Victorian Sensibilities, men should be dressed in next to nothing, which is clearly not the case.

In Victorian Sensibilities, men are also supposed to be dressed from head to toe, as little skin exposed as possible.

Therefore, Reverse Victorian would imply that now men and women should both be dressed in next to nothing. This is clearly not the case either.

Since no argument for the term "Reverse Victorian Sexism" is applicable, Zombie Man must be entirely wrong.

The only thing I find wrong with that pic is that you didn't zoom in enough.

Yeah, definatly.

What's to say that women don't want to see that on a dude?

http://www.youtube.com/user/collegeh.../6/n32YYJW9y64

There is nothing wrong with not doing stupid things.

There is nothing wrong with aiming for a mature audience.

That would be a personal preference.

No matter what the intent is to say something wasn't done because it was gay is an attack on a type of person. It's the same as saying something wouldn't be done with a product because it's "ethnic".

Wow. Totally fail on the use of English. Entitling something "Reverse... X" is not saying that *everything* is *exactly reversed* like some absurd Bizarro universe. It's a figure of speech.

"Zombie Man, your premise that these are 'Reverse' times is absurd. In Victorian times people had their skin on the outside but their internal organs on the inside. But since I see no one with their skin on the inside and their internal organs on the outside, you have absolutely no point!!"

And if you don't think women (at least the young pretty ones) aren't expected to wear next to nothing at a Red Carpet event, then you have not seen one single fashion show on the subject.

Fine, skip the title "Reverse Victorian". It's still double standards based on sex. Which is called... sexism. If it's not, I challenge you to wear a tank top at a formal event.

Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow City of Heroes is a game about freedom of expression and variety of experiences far more so than it is about representing any one theme, topic or genre.

Actually there isn't a games rating board that covers online content. In other words the Dev's could have the last boss of the incarnate trials be a fully naked, 100% accurately modeled Emperor Cole, who fires rainbow beams from his 100ft Wing wong.

As long as said files weren't on the disc in stores, the rating would remain teen.

Isn't that Leather Boy from the GLA—I mean, GLX—Er, the GLI?

I don't think we'd be allowed to rock up in a t-shirt/tank top and jeans/leggings to a formal event either - the usual rules are suits for the boys, dresses for the girls - so the problem is more that suits are less versatile than dresses - like there's not the huge range of styles and cuts that we can have with dresses - we've got hemlines, sleeves, necklines, backs and sides to play with, but suits are more restricted, and the changes in styles for them have to be smaller and less obvious.

So what we wear to formal events hasn't really changed from Victorian times - men in suits, women in dresses - it's just that our traditonal formal clothing happens to have way more scope for changes than boys' one has

Fine. Have a guy wear a *formal* tank top then.



Believe what you want. I wasn't lying. And I made sure to say it wasn't all the devs.

That wasn't the argument you were making. If you had said "In victorian times, people went around dressed from head to toe and had all of their internal organs on the inside of their skin, these days, the situation is reversed" that would have been my response.

If you had said "women were expected to cover as much skin as possible" and "today the situation is almost entirely reversed" I wouldn't be saying anything because, while I wouldn't agree, you'd be able to argue your point.

But the way you structured your argument: Women dressed this way, now women dress that way and men dress this way; the situation has been reversed. That structure implies that originally Women dressed this way and men dress that way.

The failure to express a meaning clearly is not on my side of the monitor.

There's no such thing

>.>

Actually, there is, but once again... they're found in the women's department.

Are you sure you're not thinking of a sleeveless blouse? Tank tops are very plain, so anything sleeveless that's more decorated is closer to a blouse than a genuine tank top.

Pretty sure.

Really? Because the stores and designers label them as tank tops. I think you just can't handle being wrong.

Yo, dawg, whaddabout mah fly wear tanks with graffitti motif?
They not tanks no mo'?

Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow City of Heroes is a game about freedom of expression and variety of experiences far more so than it is about representing any one theme, topic or genre.

Patterns are ok - but beading takes it out of tank top territory

Says .... you.

Along with others

Who? Your invisible friends? Because as I've already shown you from one item, the fashion world considers them tank tops, but they're formal tank tops, thus the tagging of "formal" in the front.

No one I know of would call that a tank top

Well, I have news for you... unless you're a fashion designer that makes and sells clothes and have models to showcast them, the word of you and your friends means nothing. I'd sooner trust people who know what they're talking about than some smiley obsessed girl on a message board.