I see the Awesomeness.
If it's arguing cut it. That happened on Boobs Of Steel as well, and the entire argument part got cut. Trim it down to the trope and a little bit of elaboration. If somebody wants to talk about Double Standards, they can do so in the Analysis page.
Fight smart, not fair.
Cut:
It bears saying that in some cases wearing little armor in battle is not as illogical as one might think. Mobility is important on the battlefield, with excessive armoring hindering movement more than aiding protection. The use of heavy plate armor in medieval warfare, for instance, could cause overheating in warm conditions, frostbite in cold, drowning, falling over and not being able to get up, and many other detrimental effects. Even when used appropriately the armor could kill you if it was bludgeoned in the right way, causing internal damage. Even in modern warfare many soldiers have been killed by their armor, if it's teflon fibres getting into a wound or the armour being a physical barrier to medics trying to do their work. Modern armour such as that worn by the real life woman in the example picture tries to achieve a balance between protection and mobility for the soldier — it is not impenetrable and whatever protection it provides must be supplemented by use of physical cover and movement.
Even if the outfits some find objectionably revealing were to be replaced with more modest jeans and a shirt they wouldn't offer any more protection on the battlefield — this trope concerns the sacrifice of practicality for sexuality in a male or female characters' outfit choice.
Above all else, remember that like all tropes, this one is not "right" or "wrong". Sure, plenty of productions across many media will use it as a means of cheap titillation, but costumes will often be designed provocatively because it's an interesting character design. Clothes do not necessarily make a character good or bad, a thoughtful and considered application of sex appeal where appropriate to character will often enhance good characterisation, whereas getting their kit off for the sake of it will detract. It is worth remembering that Tropes Are Tools, and that does include this one; it's just very obvious (and sometimes obnoxious) when overdone. So long as people have hormones, this trope will never completely die off.
The first paragraph is back-and-forth arguing and justification of this trope's use in a particular media, Comic Books. Out of place on the trope's description. More in the realms of debate on gender sexuality equality.
The second paragraph appears to be Completely Missing The Point: As pointed out in the paragraph below it, dressing for mobility is not the same thing as being exceptionally revealing.
Tropes Are Not Bad should be a given. So the last paragraph is an unnecessary lecture on being fair and just in their judgment of this trope. I don't think it's necessary to say why it's not bad, and simply instruct upon the use of this trope, and let the tropers form their own opinion.
Okay, I've got a beef with the trope. As it currently stands, it suggests that any mecha given feminine form is "stripperiffic". Not a mecha given, say, sexual characteristics for the express purpose of titillation. Just the idea that a mecha is gendered is enough to fall under this.
I think that's taking things too far and also waltzing into a rather dangerous stereotype that "female form = only intended for turning on men". The real problem is that the default form of any mecha is going to be thought of as "male" if a gender comes into it because the male form is considered the norm. Now, it's quite one thing when you've built a giant robot firing [[Mazingerz breast missiles]], but to otherwise claim an already impractical humanoid mecha as being modeled after a woman is pure sex fuel suggests more about the viewer in question than the creator.
As long as the trope repair shop entry is here, I thought I may as well see what other tropers think.
edited 30th Apr '11 12:50:59 PM by Rebochan
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
I see your point. There's difference between somewhat vaguely feminine mecha (can't remember any off the top of my head, but you know what I mean) and, say, Godannar's Okusaer mecha. Seriously the latter is not only a Ridiculously Human Mecha, it has fully Gainax Bounce-capable breasts. Now that is blatant sexualization of a mecha's design.
edited 1st May '11 6:50:19 AM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
Cure Candy
Well since the standard is male mecha going to a female one is probably aiming for this.
I mean look at Ardjet
◊ or Neith
from Zone Of The Enders.
However GN Archer from Gundam 00 would not be this as its not contoured enough.
edited 1st May '11 6:59:14 AM by Raso
Sparkling and glittering! Jan-Ken-Pon!
True but this trope deals more with clothing, Mechs and Power Armor aren't really clothes. Not sure what you'd classify a Power Armor as but a mech is a vehicle. Plus we already have Fembot.
edited 1st May '11 7:23:12 AM by captainpat
The thing with adding feminine traits to a robot is that it's unnecessary—a lack of obvious genitalia makes the mecha gender-neutral in most situations. If we see them as male, it's because of audience perception.
Where as giving a robot breasts and high heels seems to be overt sexualization of a non-sexual being, somewhat similar to Non-Mammal Mammaries.
Yea, that's why we have the Fembot trope. Regardless of the mold of the robot or mecha, it's not clothing.
edited 1st May '11 3:35:38 PM by captainpat
Together Forever...
Regardless, overtly feminine mecha, while certainly a trope, are not this trope, and thus should not be on the example list at all.
Unless said mecha is wearing "revealing" clothes, you mean. Yeah, that would be weird, but certainly not the weirdest thing I've seen out there.
The issue here is when sexuality is stressed over function. High heels on a robot do just that. Fem Bots are about decidedly feminine robots. I don't think it's quite this trope or that trope.
Together Forever...
Right, we're not talking about Fembots or Gynoids, we're talking giant robots. Again, different trope, which we may or may not have.
Yea but this trope deals with clothing. You can't put high heels on a mech or a female looking robot, instead their feet are shaped like high heels.
AS far I know, high heel on a fully clothed Action Girl doesn't count either. It is impractical and implausible, but not Striperific.
Drop-Dead Cynical
While it is possible to have Combat Stilettos and not have a Stripperiffic costume, Combat Stilettos are on the Stripperiffic index.
I'm still on the fence about robots being part of the trope, but I'm not convinced that it has to be clothing-only.
I see the Awesomeness.
Heels aren't necessarily female. Star Driver features a mecha that's based on a Dandy.
Fight smart, not fair.
Almost everything on the trope page is clothing or clothing design of some sort. I'm not exactly sure what else needs to be included.
Cure Candy
Zone Of The Enders's mechs have literal cockpits
◊ even the female mechs... Neith and Ardjet◊ Think about that for a bit.
All the mechs' feet are pointed but when landed they get a heel that extends for Combat Stilettos (scraping them across the ground is tons of fun.)
edited 2nd May '11 6:31:35 AM by Raso
Sparkling and glittering! Jan-Ken-Pon!
Just wondering. The first four paragraphs seem fine but the ones after that are just back and fourth arguing about the double standards and practicality or impracticality of this trope.