Search Results
7/14/2025, 10:53:43 PM
>>149396807
>assless caps
A: The phrase assless chaps has always baffled me. I have NEVER seen a pair of chaps that covered the ass. It would be like saying "assless apron" or "assless ballcap;" none of that shit is meant to cover your ass. When chaps are worn for their originally intended purpose, they're worn over jeans/trousers of some kind.
Or is assless chaps just a predecessor of phrases like "naked apron?'
>It would be like a firefighter turning up
B: So superheroes should ALL be wearing body armor, instead of the painted-on stuff they always wear? Superman should be wearing a plate carrier and a helmet?
If a skirt is insufficient for someone with invulnerability on the level of a Supergirl, then why would Superman's outfit be up to the task of protecting him either?
Why the bare arms and legs on Wonder Woman? I mean, sure, the men of ancient Greece went into battle wearing about the same amount of clothing, and that's where her inspiration lies, but...
And then there's Vixen, and Green Lantern, and basically any other character who wears what looks like skintight spandex. Actually, if Supergirl's outfit is insufficient protection for her job, which is one of the implications of the fireman argument, after all, then any character who's basically just a highly-skilled human should be in a hard-suit, mech, or a tank, compared to a Supergirl.
If the argument isn't about protection, but about whether it's appropriate, then I will again have to point to every hero (and villain!) whose costume fits them like a molecule-thick layer of latex paint.
Take Power Girl's costume. Now, put a skirt on it. Oops, suddenly that means the bottom of her leotard is actually panties, and thus "stupid."
Is the outfit stupid, or are you stupid because you think her outfit isn't appropriate for combat, when she's actually wearing an extra layer, compared to many of the leotard-wearing heroes?
>assless caps
A: The phrase assless chaps has always baffled me. I have NEVER seen a pair of chaps that covered the ass. It would be like saying "assless apron" or "assless ballcap;" none of that shit is meant to cover your ass. When chaps are worn for their originally intended purpose, they're worn over jeans/trousers of some kind.
Or is assless chaps just a predecessor of phrases like "naked apron?'
>It would be like a firefighter turning up
B: So superheroes should ALL be wearing body armor, instead of the painted-on stuff they always wear? Superman should be wearing a plate carrier and a helmet?
If a skirt is insufficient for someone with invulnerability on the level of a Supergirl, then why would Superman's outfit be up to the task of protecting him either?
Why the bare arms and legs on Wonder Woman? I mean, sure, the men of ancient Greece went into battle wearing about the same amount of clothing, and that's where her inspiration lies, but...
And then there's Vixen, and Green Lantern, and basically any other character who wears what looks like skintight spandex. Actually, if Supergirl's outfit is insufficient protection for her job, which is one of the implications of the fireman argument, after all, then any character who's basically just a highly-skilled human should be in a hard-suit, mech, or a tank, compared to a Supergirl.
If the argument isn't about protection, but about whether it's appropriate, then I will again have to point to every hero (and villain!) whose costume fits them like a molecule-thick layer of latex paint.
Take Power Girl's costume. Now, put a skirt on it. Oops, suddenly that means the bottom of her leotard is actually panties, and thus "stupid."
Is the outfit stupid, or are you stupid because you think her outfit isn't appropriate for combat, when she's actually wearing an extra layer, compared to many of the leotard-wearing heroes?
Page 1