Professor Oak
Are you a boy or girl?
Youre absolutely misguided and out of touch if you think that 90% of what humans do and wear and present them as isnt for sexual appeal. Including why boxers and wrestlers are historically less clothed. Im going to end this conversation and move forward with the understanding that certain members here are deluded beyond reason.It's just a giant false equivalency. Fighters never wear shirts. Not in Boxing, not in MMA. But they're also not sexualized. Doesn't mean that they can't still be sexy or whatever, but it's not the main point.
Female boxers and MMA artists wear gear that doesn't cover everything, but it's also not shaped like bikinis/thongs etc. It's not intended to be sexualized. It also generally minimizes cleavage a bit (since it's designed to keep things comfortable for fighting) rather than overemphasizing it the way sex-themed underwear does.
Then you have say, ring card holders, who are most definitely intended for aesthetic appeal. The issue is that from MK9 the female combatants were close to ring card girls than something resembling a fighter. It's not that people should have a problem with it, but if the franchise decides to grow up a bit, that should also be fine.
But this "Bruce Lee-stylefFighters without the shirts is the same as wearing stripper-eque outfits" is just a very poor connection to draw. It doesn't do justice to the legacy of fighting in media.
Biology overrides a lot.
Point being; It is not necessary to have overly sexualized females OR males, but it should be OKAY to have them. No one should be mad at it, its reductive of real life issues. The “well what was she wearing when he attacked her?” Vibe is what I get from that mentality.