Femme Armor Sacrifices Safety for Sex Appeal

[Seventh Actuality]

Also, WoW gets a lot of unfair flack for this. It crops up in covers and artwork a lot more than in the actual game. Only a very small handful of items actually work like that (although people do tend to seek them out).

That's not what I saw. My favorite was the blood elf wearing plate armor that had the shape of -- I do not exaggerate -- tiny thong bikini briefs, thigh-highs, and a sport bra. Her midriff, cleavage, butt, and upper thighs were bare. Plate armor is supposed to cover you so completely there isn't a single square inch of skin exposed, yes? Why all that smooth luscious real estate? She looked like a hooker whose chief clientele were as likely to wave an axe at her as a dollar. A male wearing that gear certainly would not have looked that way. My female hunter had some skintight leather leggings with large cuts all the way up the sides. I could go on. Not every piece of female clothing was like this, but then I can't remember a single item modeled on a male in a deliberately provocative way.

Except those items are rare and quickly replaced. If you saw a player looking like that, it's because they deliberately sought those items out. Also, you say skintight, but every single piece of armour and clothing in WoW is skintight on males and females alike.

It's not that it's not there, and it's wrong that the items look different on males and females, but my point was just that people act like this is rife in WoW when actually it's barely present and easily avoided.

 

[Lissa-QUON]

It's important to understand that through most of history women were second class citizens at best for a number of reasons. It's not just a lack of physical strength but also relative vulnerability compared to men. See, women have these things called "breasts" which are very sensitive. A girl gets slammed in that area, and the closest analogy for you gentlemen would be to getting kicked in the nuts.... and the size of the breasts in question doesn't paticularly matter here.

It's relevent to this discussion because what this means is that your "sensibly armored" female warrior is going to be totally ineffective in things like plate or chain mail. A blow to the chest which a guy in a breastplate would shrug off is going to take a lady out of the fight instantly.

(Note: I am not going to go into the science of how plate armor distributes the impact of blows and such, this response is long enough as it is.)

Erm...boobs don't work that way. We ladies may joke that "we have balls only higher up" but they really aren't as sensitive as you seem to think. So no - getting hit in the breast isn't going to have us writhing in pain or down for the count. It's uncomfortable, but so does getting hit anywhere else on the body. As for the nipple area - scientifically the nerves there are about the same as a dudes. So getting hit there will only hurt a woman about as much as it would hurt a guy.

This is of course unless the woman is pregnant or nursing and then - that is a different kettle of fish. One that I'm not commenting on since I'm have no first hand knowledge of and it isn't really important for this discussion anyway.

As for your argument about breasts getting in the way and how we have to use modern "space age" fabrics to combat this problem, once again, breasts don't work that way. Breasts, if you have never had the opportunity to observe, are squishy. They conform to shapes - women could fit in normal armor unless they were fairly well endowed. Also women have been binding their breasts for ages before the invention of elastic or spandex.

Ancient Roman woman sometimes wore strophium or mamillare which were wool or linen to restrict or conceal breasts. Nuns in certain orders were required to wear linen bindings to bind their breasts to be less of a distraction. It may be uncomfortable for long periods of time but breast binding is a possibility in a medieval-esque setting.

So no, there really isn't a good excuse for putting women in chain mail bikinis.

 

[Abedeus]

I liked it. Although I am abit puzzled as to why she feels a pinch when she is about to strike. (though it is funny)

Let's just say there's a reason you normally wear chainmail over leather.

Or cloth.

Apparently, it's better to fight in cloth alone than chainmail/metal armor alone. You get so much friction to the skin, you might actually case yourself some damage.

OT: That's why I stopped taking seriously any kind of "bikini armor". Guess Erza Scarlett from Fairy Tail and other Paladin-like characters ruined it for me by taking a crapload of armor (seriously, one of Erza's armors is a huge plate mail with two gigantic shields strapped to arms) and still looking feminine.

But, uhm... Samus isn't really a sex symbol. Sorry.

 

[banksy122]

A lot of people seem to think Females wear different armour to males. Which is wrong. I am in a medieval re-enactment group(Not live steel, we actually fight for real, look us up SCA) and all the women who fight in it wear the same armour as men, some with slightly rounder chest plates.
Also people seem to think fighters wore armour with nothing underneath it, and I can assure you that is not true. When I fought I had a shirt and long pants, sometimes a jumper(Sweater) and a gambeson under the armour, plus padding in the armour for joints. Chain mail is also terrible armour, it only is effective against arrows.

A bit off topic, but still ties in with armour, I used full plate armour when I fought and found it incredibly comfortable and had no problems with mobility. The chest didn't go all the way down to my waist, but I had a large belt(forget the name for it) which protected the normally exposed skin.

 

[Alexias_Sandar]

With armor it comes down to protection vs mobility, which is why Roman and Greek soldiers didn't have armored mid-rifts (so they could bend at the middle), wore slatted leather or cloth skirts, and had little arm or leg armor (maybe bracers and/or greaves).

Really full body armor didn't appear until the mid-to-late Medieval period, and full heavy armor was generally too bulky for anything but tournaments (even knights preferred more mobile armor in combat). The only time you'd see full armor was a mix of plate and chain, and only rich knights would have that. Most soldiers fought with little or no armor at all, so in reality, a chainmail bikini would offer more protection than basically nothing and most warriors should be dressed in cloth with maybe a leather jacket.

Also having worn heavy plate (tournament plate), I'd bet on the girl in the chainmail bikini - you can't see out of those helmets, you're almost immobile encased in 300lbs of iron, and it is easy to be knocked off balance. Once you're on the ground, you're as good as dead because it is pretty much impossible to stand without the help of a squire, so all they have to do is find a seam and stick a sword in.

Armor is not nearly as heavy or as encumbering as many people seem to think. I've seen men in full plate armor tumble, do interesting tricks on horseback like stand atop their horse and fight and the like. A sufficiently well trained combatant can be quite mobile in heavy armor. It also weight FAR, FAR less than most people think. A good set of plate armor usually is well under the 50 lb mark...and if strapped on properly, feels much lighter than it really is. Modern soldiers carry more weight in equipment and their own armor, generally, actually. It's one advantage the ancient warrior had...if you were wealthy enough to afford good armor, you were certainly wealthy enough to afford someone else to hump your gear that you weren't using.

 

[Asti]

It's important to understand that through most of history women were second class citizens at best for a number of reasons. It's not just a lack of physical strength but also relative vulnerability compared to men. See, women have these things called "breasts" which are very sensitive. A girl gets slammed in that area, and the closest analogy for you gentlemen would be to getting kicked in the nuts.... and the size of the breasts in question doesn't paticularly matter here.

It's relevent to this discussion because what this means is that your "sensibly armored" female warrior is going to be totally ineffective in things like plate or chain mail. A blow to the chest which a guy in a breastplate would shrug off is going to take a lady out of the fight instantly.

(Note: I am not going to go into the science of how plate armor distributes the impact of blows and such, this response is long enough as it is.)

Erm...boobs don't work that way. We ladies may joke that "we have balls only higher up" but they really aren't as sensitive as you seem to think. So no - getting hit in the breast isn't going to have us writhing in pain or down for the count. It's uncomfortable, but so does getting hit anywhere else on the body. As for the nipple area - scientifically the nerves there are about the same as a dudes. So getting hit there will only hurt a woman about as much as it would hurt a guy.

This is of course unless the woman is pregnant or nursing and then - that is a different kettle of fish. One that I'm not commenting on since I'm have no first hand knowledge of and it isn't really important for this discussion anyway.

As for your argument about breasts getting in the way and how we have to use modern "space age" fabrics to combat this problem, once again, breasts don't work that way. Breasts, if you have never had the opportunity to observe, are squishy. They conform to shapes - women could fit in normal armor unless they were fairly well endowed. Also women have been binding their breasts for ages before the invention of elastic or spandex.

Ancient Roman woman sometimes wore strophium or mamillare which were wool or linen to restrict or conceal breasts. Nuns in certain orders were required to wear linen bindings to bind their breasts to be less of a distraction. It may be uncomfortable for long periods of time but breast binding is a possibility in a medieval-esque setting.

So no, there really isn't a good excuse for putting women in chain mail bikinis.

So glad someone pointed that out. I read the following posts, smacking myself in the breasts thinking: "Gosh, am I somehow different from other women?"

 

[OneOfTheMichael's]

I saw this vid yesterday and thought of it true, yet funny. The comparison between female and males been going on for a long time and males like to think of themselves as heavy muscular power houses and think of females as more agile and mobile, but still sexy. So the male blacksmiths would make them (as shown) more sexy and lighter. It's still pretty stupid to still have females in some games wearing bits of clothing revealing everything but the bikini area.

 

[Tallindor]

Actually

I liked it. Although I am abit puzzled as to why she feels a pinch when she is about to strike. (though it is funny)

Let's just say there's a reason you normally wear chainmail over leather.

Actually, there is no historical evidence that leather has been used as padding, other than to reinforce the seams and strengthen the outer layer since leather was either too bulky or expensive to actually be converted into a suit of armour. 8-10 layers of linen was more often used, at least in European culture, whereas in for example Japanese customs dictate that padding would be constructed from silk.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Chain mail is also terrible armour, it only is effective against arrows.

Hey? It may not stop many weapons, but isn't going to make quite a difference to how hurt you become when getting hit by alot of them?

So glad someone pointed that out. I read the following posts, smacking myself in the breasts thinking: "Gosh, am I somehow different from other women?"

You hit yourself in the breasts while perusing the forum? Yeah, that might be a bit different.

 

[Asti]

So glad someone pointed that out. I read the following posts, smacking myself in the breasts thinking: "Gosh, am I somehow different from other women?"

You hit yourself in the breasts while perusing the forum? Yeah, that might be a bit different.

Well, not in general, obviously. XD
I just wanted to try out if there's any difference between hitting your breasts and hitting any other body part and there honestly isn't. Except for the squishiness, that is.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Well, not in general, obviously. XD
I just wanted to try out if there's any difference between hitting your breasts and hitting any other body part and there honestly isn't. Except for the squishiness, that is.

I'm not here to judge.

 

[Dejawesp]

So we got character shooting fireballs out of their hands. Dragons, Elves, Fairies, goblins and magic of all sorts but when a woman shows up in bikini armour that's when things start to seem unrealistic huh?

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I just wanted to try out if there's any difference between hitting your breasts and hitting any other body part and there honestly isn't. Except for the squishiness, that is.

Males do have pectoral muscles though, which, when trained, can diminish the impact of a blow striking you in the chest.
Women, due to the mammary gland, still have a fleshy part trying to be forced through a muscled part. This can lead to breast cancer and is why a lot of female boxing is not allowed to make chest hits.

Next time, take a heavy book and slap it against your upper chest. I can do that with no real discomfort. I believe you may suffer a lot more.

Had women been armoured in the medieval times, I'm sure there would have been as many advances for their specific armour types as there have been for bras in the modern times. (Fascinating history btw).

The "box" was developed to protect men and I'd assume a "breast box" would have been developed to protect women. The sheer size of these would have made female armour unfeasible given medieval equipment.

And if you don't know why chainmail bikinis wouldn't work, try wearing a set of chainmail with nothing on underneath - you'll soon know.

However, most female fashions have been designed (by women) to specifically show off their differences while minimizing any problem areas. If we are to assume there was a suitable way of mass-producing armour, then there would be military armour (Samus style) and decorative armour. (Probably missing the décolletage so that cleavage could be shown)

Codpieces were not there to protect the groinal area. They were there for exactly the same reasons as bikinis. "Here's my danglies"

And the chainmail bikini was daft?

 

[Thaluikhain]

So we got character shooting fireballs out of their hands. Dragons, Elves, Fairies, goblins and magic of all sorts but when a woman shows up in bikini armour that's when things start to seem unrealistic huh?

Those things will be explained within the confines of their own universes. Or at least should be.

Female specific skimpy armour generally is not.

I hate to cite Tarot: Witch of the Black Rose as a good example, but it gave various reasons why this was the case in it's universe. It seems to be the case that nobody wears physical armour, instead everyone seems to prefer magically doo-hickies and whatever they think looks nice. The culture also doesn't have a nudity taboo, so they can get away with nothing at all.

Of course, it falls down in that male nudity takes place much less frequently, and is always covered up by something, whereas female nudity is very blatantly displayed in great depth.

[small]That is, where it falls down in regards to this issue, not in regards to the...um...half of everything else it does[/small]

If a good reason is forthcoming, you should be able to get away with it. Not bothering with a reason, that's half-arsed. "Everyone is naked because of cultural reasons", there, not hard.

 

[AngelBlackChaos]

I have always been attracted to games that didnt treat female characters as pieces of meat. Showing off their bodies a bit, like individually sculpted breast holders in armor, I can roll my eyes at, but continue. The infamous armor bikini, and its similar cousins in so called protection, tend to make me so turned off at the game that I end up no longer playing it. A game I currently play, Final Fantasy 11 online, as a majority, has armor that doesnt show the body off. A couple of the dancer pieces tend to be a bit more revealing, but that isnt too bad. At least they have it revealing for the men as well as the women in design XD.

 

[Dejawesp]

So we got character shooting fireballs out of their hands. Dragons, Elves, Fairies, goblins and magic of all sorts but when a woman shows up in bikini armour that's when things start to seem unrealistic huh?

Those things will be explained within the confines of their own universes. Or at least should be.

Female specific skimpy armour generally is not.

I hate to cite Tarot: Witch of the Black Rose as a good example, but it gave various reasons why this was the case in it's universe. It seems to be the case that nobody wears physical armour, instead everyone seems to prefer magically doo-hickies and whatever they think looks nice. The culture also doesn't have a nudity taboo, so they can get away with nothing at all.

Of course, it falls down in that male nudity takes place much less frequently, and is always covered up by something, whereas female nudity is very blatantly displayed in great depth.

[small]That is, where it falls down in regards to this issue, not in regards to the...um...half of everything else it does[/small]

If a good reason is forthcoming, you should be able to get away with it. Not bothering with a reason, that's half-arsed. "Everyone is naked because of cultural reasons", there, not hard.

That doesn't make any sense

 

[Thaluikhain]

Codpieces were not there to protect the groinal area. They were there for exactly the same reasons as bikinis. "Here's my danglies"

And the chainmail bikini was daft?

Um...he's not going off to fight anyone dressed like that. If RPGs tended to be about people staying at home talking to their relatives, wearing skimpy chainmail bikinis would still be somewhat weird, but for very different reasons.

 

[GoodApprentice]

Well they do say that we aim at what our eyes focus on.

 

[GoodApprentice]

Well they do say that we aim at what our eyes focus on.

damn it, double post