Moderators: General Help, Kanzenshuu Staff
Toriyama designed Chi-chi, so...Cetra wrote:I am curious about how you feel after you have noticed that Toriyama-san is the one who designed Bra like that.Kamiccolo9 wrote:No, Pan has always been older. GT's character designers were just on crack.
I consider Chi Chi a warrior princess kind of design compared to Bra's "I'm a young hooker." design. I don't know what he was thinking when he designed Bra. But I can kind of understand what he was getting at with Chi Chi.rereboy wrote:Toriyama designed Chi-chi, so...
rereboy wrote:Toriyama designed Chi-chi, so...Cetra wrote:I am curious about how you feel after you have noticed that Toriyama-san is the one who designed Bra like that.Kamiccolo9 wrote:No, Pan has always been older. GT's character designers were just on crack.
Huh...? That seems to me that you are letting preconceptions/stereotypes dictate what you think of the clothes. Chi-chi basically has panties and a bra with shoulder pads (and also gloves and boots), while Bra has a top and a skirt (and also gloves and boots). Objectively speaking, Chi-chi's outfit is clearly much more revealing while Bra's doesn't reveal that much at all. Even Chi-chi's gloves and boots are more revealing than Bra's gloves and boots.Hitiro wrote:I consider Chi Chi a warrior princess kind of design compared to Bra's "I'm a young hooker." design. I don't know what he was thinking when he designed Bra. But I can kind of understand what he was getting at with Chi Chi.rereboy wrote:Toriyama designed Chi-chi, so...
I don't really remember.Cetra wrote:I know. We have had that talk before. I thought about that yesterday.
But there is a reason for her to be dressed akin to that. Like Amazonian warriors wear little clothes. It increases mobility in combat. And she is actually wearing armour. Bra's clothing is designed for none of these features. It is purely designed for sex appeal. Especially with it being some sort of latex.rereboy wrote:Huh...? That seems to me that you are letting preconceptions/stereotypes dictate what you think of the clothes. Chi-chi basically has panties and a bra with shoulder pads (and also gloves and boots), while Bra has a top and a skirt (and also gloves and boots). Objectively speaking, Chi-chi's outfit is clearly much more revealing while Bra's doesn't reveal that much at all. Even Chi-chi's gloves and boots are more revealing than Bra's gloves and boots.Hitiro wrote:I consider Chi Chi a warrior princess kind of design compared to Bra's "I'm a young hooker." design. I don't know what he was thinking when he designed Bra. But I can kind of understand what he was getting at with Chi Chi.rereboy wrote:Toriyama designed Chi-chi, so...
I'm surprised Vegeta even let her plant one foot outside the door wearing that crapTheGreatness25 wrote:Hooker Bra in GT was easily the worst character in the series who was carried over from Z. Then again, when her mom was a teenager, she was willing to show her panties to strange, savage 12 year old boys, so what the hell can one expect? No... no, screw that. Still doesn't compare to 8 year old Bra not only dressing like a hooker, but flirting with guys (I think she did, can't remember really but I'm sure she does with the guys driving next to Vegeta).
Like Vegeta, ain't there somethin' else you gots to worrying 'bout besides surpassing Goku? Yo daughter walkin' outside lookin' like she ain't got no sliver of sense. 
I don't think anyone can argue that Chi-Chi's clothes are meant to be armor and to protect her body with a straight face. Amazonian warriors who wear little clothes aren't concerned with protection and armor, and amazonian warriors who care about protection have at the very least the same protection that Xena had in her series (and even that was already a little amount of armor and had a sexualized style).Hitiro wrote:But there is a reason for her to be dressed akin to that. Like Amazonian warriors wear little clothes. It increases mobility in combat. And she is actually wearing armour. Bra's clothing is designed for none of these features. It is purely designed for sex appeal. Especially with it being some sort of latex.
Toriyama may not have been given the specific placement on how many years after The 28th Tournament GT took place.ringworm128 wrote:Wait Bra's 8? I also thought she was at least 12-13 but 8?
Only something Toriyama could think up.
Makes sense, she really just doesn't look 8, even if put her in a plain sun dress. Also I'l say that if you look at her design without thinking of it as being sexual, it's pretty neat character design. Definitely makes Bra stand out visually.dbgtFO wrote:Toriyama may not have been given the specific placement on how many years after The 28th Tournament GT took place.ringworm128 wrote:Wait Bra's 8? I also thought she was at least 12-13 but 8?
Only something Toriyama could think up.
Even GT itself does not establish it.
There's only a 5 year gap between the end of Z and GT (though the Funimation dub changed that to 10 year) and since Bra was only around 4 years old at the end of Z (would turn 4 that year, regardless), she'd be 8-9 years old at the start of GT.ringworm128 wrote:Wait Bra's 8? I also thought she was at least 12-13 but 8?
Only something Toriyama could think up.
What are you on about? She is clearly wearing armour. Armour does serve a purpose. And I've seen plenty of Amazonian warrior designs similar to Chi Chi's. It serves the purpose of being protection and light fitting for manoeuvrability and flexibility. While I don't disagree that it is sexualised to a certain degree, Akira Toriyama clearly could have made her wear a bit more, it is honestly lessened by the fact that what she is wearing does serve a purpose. Bra's outfit however has not purpose other than to make her look sexual. For comparison you're basically saying that a girl in a bikini, which is designed to be comfortable to wear while swimming, is more sexual than a girl dressed in a full gimp outfit.rereboy wrote:I don't think anyone can argue that Chi-Chi's clothes are meant to be armor and to protect her body with a straight face. Amazonian warriors who wear little clothes aren't concerned with protection and armor, and amazonian warriors who care about protection have at the very least the same protection that Xena had in her series (and even that was already a little amount of armor and had a sexualized style).
As for Bra, you just seem to be letting stereotypes influence what you think since you associate latex or leather with hookers.
Yes, Bra's outfit is sexualized, but it's basically the same thing as Chi-Chi. Chi-Chi's outfit is actually worse, objectively speaking, since it's more revealing.
She is wearing a bra with shoulder pads and panties. Even if they were made out of Katchin, those clothes would basically just be really resistant underwear, not an actual armored outfit that prioritized protection. I don't know how you can argue the opposite with a straight face.Hitiro wrote:What are you on about? She is clearly wearing armour. Armour does serve a purpose.
You've seen fantasy renditions of amazonians. An outfit that offered some protection would have to be, at the very least, something like Xena wore in her series, and even that is on the light side. Less than that and clearly there isn't a real focus on protection in the outfit.And I've seen plenty of Amazonian warrior designs similar to Chi Chi's. It serves the purpose of being protection and light fitting for manoeuvrability and flexibility
While I don't disagree that it is sexualised to a certain degree, Akira Toriyama clearly could have made her wear a bit more, it is honestly lessened by the fact that what she is wearing does serve a purpose. Bra's outfit however has not purpose other than to make her look sexual.
The only reason why people think bikinis are ok to look at, but underwear isn't, for example is just because of preconceptions and stereotypes. The same thing can be said regarding "hooker outfits". So you are kind of proving my point here.For comparison you're basically saying that a girl in a bikini, which is designed to be comfortable to wear while swimming, is more sexual than a girl dressed in a full gimp outfit.
Look, despite what you say, it is armour and it does provide protection, however little that may be. It serves a function. Bra's doesn't serve anything other than making her into sex object. If you can't see that then you're blind. And really anything that offered protection would not have to apply to the whole body, the Sarmartian's, who were descended from the Amazons and the Scythians, often had male fighters who only wore a helmet and used a shield. As depicted in this stonework.[spoiler]rereboy wrote:She is wearing a bra with shoulder pads and panties. Even if they were made out of Katchin, those clothes would basically just be really resistant underwear, not an actual armored outfit that prioritized protection. If you can argue the opposite with a straight face, there is really nothing more to discuss.Hitiro wrote:What are you on about? She is clearly wearing armour. Armour does serve a purpose.
You've seen fantasy renditions of amazonians. An outfit that offered some protection would have to be, at the very least, something like Xena wore in her series, and even that is on the little armor side. Less than that and clearly there isn't a real focus on protection in the outfit.And I've seen plenty of Amazonian warrior designs similar to Chi Chi's. It serves the purpose of being protection and light fitting for maneuverability and flexibility
[/spoiler]It provides the same protection as underwear, only more resistant. If you want to call that an outfit that prioritizes protection, which is what an armored outfit is, be my guest. However, to me, it's clear that the focus of the outfit is not protection.Hitiro wrote:Look, despite what you say, it is armour and it does provide protection, however little that may be. It serves a function.
Because all you can see when looking at the outfit is a hooker, thanks to preconceptions and stereotypes. You don't even know if that was the intention of the author, but because it reminds you of that, that's all you can see, even though it's actually much less revealing than ChiChi's outfit which supposedly prioritizes protection.Bra's doesn't serve anything other than making her into sex object.
If you can't see that then you're blind.
These Sarmatians?And really anything that offered protection would not have to apply to the whole body, the Sarmartian's, who were descended from the Amazons and the Scythians, often had male fighters who only wore a helmet and used a shield. As depicted in this stonework.[spoiler]
Except I never said it prioritizes protection... I clearly said that it offers some protection and provides maneuverability and flexibility. The simple fact is that it's not just a skimpy outfit.rereboy wrote:It provides the same protection as underwear, only more resistant. If you want to call that an outfit that prioritizes protection, which is what an armored outfit is, be my guest. However, to me, it's clear that the focus of the outfit is not protection.Hitiro wrote:Look, despite what you say, it is armour and it does provide protection, however little that may be. It serves a function.
No, all I can see is that there is no reason for her to wear something like that other than to look sexual. It's not about preconceptions or stereotypes. If an 8 or 9 year old girl were wearing this sort of thing it would be wrong because, as I said, it serves no other purpose. It's just about the purpose of what they are both wearing and Chi Chi's actually has some purpose. If it weren't armour and some sort of skimpy bikini then I would understand. Because it would not be fulfilling any role other than to look skimpy on her. But that is not the case.rereboy wrote:Because all you can see when looking at the outfit is a hooker, thanks to preconceptions and stereotypes. You don't even know if that was the intention of the author, but because it reminds you of that, that's all you can see, even though it's actually much less revealing than ChiChi's outfit which supposedly prioritizes protection.Bra's doesn't serve anything other than making her into sex object.
Again, it's not preconceptions or stereotypes. Those clothes serve no purpose in real life. They are tight fitting, probably uncomfortable to wear through a general day, and don't provide any benefit regular clothes would. If you're in summer you wear light and loose clothes that make you cool. Because that's the purpose they fill. If you're in the winter you wear big coats, scarfs and other things because that's the purpose they serve. If it is raining then you wear a coat, because that's the purpose it serves. So why is she wearing what she is wearing?rereboy wrote:I can actually see beyond preconceptions and stereotypes, so...
And the ones in the image I linked are clearly wearing absolutely nothing and only wearing helmets and shields. Whether or not there are ones who wore little to nothing or those who wore full armour my point still stands that there were ones that would wear extremely little and wear only a bit of protection. And again, I never said "prioritize protection". You're putting words in my mouth.rereboy wrote:These Sarmatians?And really anything that offered protection would not have to apply to the whole body, the Sarmartian's, who were descended from the Amazons and the Scythians, often had male fighters who only wore a helmet and used a shield. As depicted in this stonework.[spoiler]
"In the year 357 the Sarmatians did together with a neighboring nation the Quad incursions in the Roman bank of the Danube in Pannonia and Moesië led by their princes Zizais, Rumo, Zinafer, Usafer and Fragiledus. A contemporary writes about them: "these barbarians, who are better in raids than in open battle, armed with long spears and wearing armor of linen shirts on which are sewn as scales polished plates of horn"".
In http://www.marres.education/sarmatians.htm
"Most adversaries were overwhelmed by the Scythian battle tactics. It was only the Sarmatians who found a successful counter-strategy to withstand the Scythians. The Sarmatian warriors and their mounts were protected with armor. Usually the armor consisted of metal plates of bronze or iron sewn onto leather garments."
in http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/sarmatians.htm
Sarmartian who didn't prioritize protection might not wear anything. Those who did, wore.
