Femme Armor Sacrifices Safety for Sex Appeal

[theguiltyone]

Actually, Greek statues often had odd proportions of musculature, but a large penis was something to be mocked (you see those in greek comedies). Heroically proportion penises were fairly small.

There was the openness towards homosexuality though. May have been a part to it.

I gotta ask. What part of openness towards homosexuality has any part in Greek standards of art regarding man-tackle?

I'm REALLY curious.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I gotta ask. What part of openness towards homosexuality has any part in Greek standards of art regarding man-tackle?

I'm REALLY curious.

Well, it's our fear of homosexuality that prevents us having them on show, it only stands to reason that once it is accepted, it would become part of the jokes. Gay people tell the worst gay jokes in the same way the Irish know all the worst Irishman jokes.

I seem to remember some Roman/Greek direction signs actually being not just phallic but a big cock.

 

[theguiltyone]

I gotta ask. What part of openness towards homosexuality has any part in Greek standards of art regarding man-tackle?

I'm REALLY curious.

Well, it's our fear of homosexuality that prevents us having them on show, it only stands to reason that once it is accepted, it would become part of the jokes. Gay people tell the worst gay jokes in the same way the Irish know all the worst Irishman jokes.

I seem to remember some Roman/Greek direction signs actually being not just phallic but a big cock.

I guess I'm just not getting the whole penis = homosexuality thing. I figured hetero guys had them and joked about them, too.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I guess I'm just not getting the whole penis = homosexuality thing. I figured hetero guys had them and joked about them, too.

It's not penis=homosexuality, it's "Truth about Penis" comes from homosexuality - "Wild Exaggerations about Penis" comes from heterosexuality.

Though that's more of guideline than a rule.

 

[theguiltyone]

I guess I'm just not getting the whole penis = homosexuality thing. I figured hetero guys had them and joked about them, too.

It's not penis=homosexuality, it's "Truth about Penis" comes from homosexuality - "Wild Exaggerations about Penis" comes from heterosexuality.

Though that's more of guideline than a rule.

Lol, okay, THAT makes sense.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I gotta ask. What part of openness towards homosexuality has any part in Greek standards of art regarding man-tackle?

I'm REALLY curious.

Well, it's our fear of homosexuality that prevents us having them on show, it only stands to reason that once it is accepted, it would become part of the jokes. Gay people tell the worst gay jokes in the same way the Irish know all the worst Irishman jokes.

I seem to remember some Roman/Greek direction signs actually being not just phallic but a big cock.

You had all sorts of good luck things and little shrines involving penises.

Make sense, really, even if society wasn't over-sexualised, sex would be a big part (or else your society runs out of people), you'd expect that religion and culture would incorporate lots of sexual things, even if it's just things solely about reproduction.

Though, as it stands, despite being obsessed with sex, our culture wouldn't like, say, sheelagh-na-gigs (sp?) to crop up in public. Which seems a tad odd.

 

[TheDooD]

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?

No, that's when it pushes past 'unrealistic' into 'just plain stupid'.

Good fantasy has a balance that's still grounded in something we can relate to and understand at its core, while suspending belief enough for the origins of creatures, magic, etc.

Emphasis on GOOD fantasy.

still wizards wearing robes have realistically the same amount of protection as a man or woman wearing nothing but a loincloth and the blood of their foes. If you can't back up the logic between why a wizard's robe can absorb fire. Then why the concept of some armor that shows off some T and A is so hard to grasp. Shit in most fantasy male barbarians wear less then females. So I guess it just plain stupid that they can fight many enemies with armor and win because they lacked armor.

 

[Nashidar]

Pretty sure the guys over at Extra Credits here at The Escapist have covered this issue in greater depth.

Here are a few particular links:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2505-Sex-in-Games

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2868-True-Female-Characters

 

[Zechnophobe]

Why is the picture for this Leia? She's literally in bondage gear in that shot, not armor, I don't think that ends up being a good shot for this.

Just a massive knit pick!

 

[theguiltyone]

still wizards wearing robes have realistically the same amount of protection as a man or woman wearing nothing but a loincloth and the blood of their foes. If you can't back up the logic between why a wizard's robe can absorb fire. Then why the concept of some armor that shows off some T and A is so hard to grasp. Shit in most fantasy male barbarians wear less then females. So I guess it just plain stupid that they can fight many enemies with armor and win because they lacked armor.

I agree that charging into battle with a loin cloth is just as stupid as a female warrior wearing a bikini. And they generally go hand-in-hand. Which is partly why I'm not a huge champion of that style of story anyway.

The 'concept' of T&A armor is not hard to grasp, by the way. It's VERY easy to grasp. It's still stupid and without basis in any sort of logic.

RE: Wizard robes. Most wizards do not get into close-quarter combat, and do not have to deal with axes and swords. They're traditionally long-range fighters, with more emphasis on intellect and magic than the strength to lug around heavy plate armor like their warrior counterparts. Enchanted light armor, like robes imbued with magical protective properties, DOES make sense, and there IS logic behind it.

 

[TheDooD]

still wizards wearing robes have realistically the same amount of protection as a man or woman wearing nothing but a loincloth and the blood of their foes. If you can't back up the logic between why a wizard's robe can absorb fire. Then why the concept of some armor that shows off some T and A is so hard to grasp. Shit in most fantasy male barbarians wear less then females. So I guess it just plain stupid that they can fight many enemies with armor and win because they lacked armor.

I agree that charging into battle with a loin cloth is just as stupid as a female warrior wearing a bikini. And they generally go hand-in-hand. Which is partly why I'm not a huge champion of that style of story anyway.

The 'concept' of T&A armor is not hard to grasp, by the way. It's VERY easy to grasp. It's still stupid and without basis in any sort of logic.

RE: Wizard robes. Most wizards do not get into close-quarter combat, and do not have to deal with axes and swords. They're traditionally long-range fighters, with more emphasis on intellect and magic than the strength to lug around heavy plate armor like their warrior counterparts. Enchanted light armor, like robes imbued with magical protective properties, DOES make sense, and there IS logic behind it.

The thing is also most of that high level armor in general is enchanted as well so it can be something more revealing while allowing the same protection. Like with the massive tank like armor of a Paladin or Knight normally no normal person could wear it because it too heavy. yet its made lighter due to magically enhancements so while on the users it seems light due to magic while to others it's extremely heavy. It's the same concept with the revealing female armor or light armor in general it's enhanced with magic to make it as strong as the greatest heavy armor while still being light as it normally was. When Magic is involved logic is tossed out the window because there's always a spell, rune, curse, hex or some kinda of other influence. It makes what seem stupid like a chainmail bikini smart because it's been enchanted to protect the user's body.

 

[CorvusFerreum]

A lot of people seem to think Females wear [...] Chain mail is also terrible armour, it only is effective against arrows.
[...]

Isn't chainmail extremely ineffective against arrows? For all I know piercing weapons are the main weakness of chainmail (because the rings can be bursted open quite easy, even if they are riveted).
Maille protects mainly against cut wounds.

Frm armor tests that I have seen, butted mail is worse then useless, and riveted mail, when combined with a gambeson, provides excellent protection. Most dark-age combat wounds were to the extremities for a reason.

Bows with a certain drag force can pierce even rivited mail over a gambeson. That doesn't mean it's useless. As mentioned: protection from cuttings is vital, since a blood poisoning was a much deadlier thread then today. And even butted mail gives protection against that. But as I know rivited mail was more common.
But that chainmail has many flaws doesn't make it useless. If it were, people wouldn't have spend a fortune only to be slower on the battlefield.

 

[Lissa-QUON]

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.

Fair point - not sure if its accurate since I'm not about to go damaging myself for science but fair point. Though wouldn't armor actually prevent that kind of problem? Meaning women who were going out into the fray would actually want to cover their breasts up instead of leave them hanging out?

 

[theguiltyone]

still wizards wearing robes have realistically the same amount of protection as a man or woman wearing nothing but a loincloth and the blood of their foes. If you can't back up the logic between why a wizard's robe can absorb fire. Then why the concept of some armor that shows off some T and A is so hard to grasp. Shit in most fantasy male barbarians wear less then females. So I guess it just plain stupid that they can fight many enemies with armor and win because they lacked armor.

I agree that charging into battle with a loin cloth is just as stupid as a female warrior wearing a bikini. And they generally go hand-in-hand. Which is partly why I'm not a huge champion of that style of story anyway.

The 'concept' of T&A armor is not hard to grasp, by the way. It's VERY easy to grasp. It's still stupid and without basis in any sort of logic.

RE: Wizard robes. Most wizards do not get into close-quarter combat, and do not have to deal with axes and swords. They're traditionally long-range fighters, with more emphasis on intellect and magic than the strength to lug around heavy plate armor like their warrior counterparts. Enchanted light armor, like robes imbued with magical protective properties, DOES make sense, and there IS logic behind it.

The thing is also most of that high level armor in general is enchanted as well so it can be something more revealing while allowing the same protection. Like with the massive tank like armor of a Paladin or Knight normally no normal person could wear it because it too heavy. yet its made lighter due to magically enhancements so while on the users it seems light due to magic while to others it's extremely heavy. It's the same concept with the revealing female armor or light armor in general it's enhanced with magic to make it as strong as the greatest heavy armor while still being light as it normally was. When Magic is involved logic is tossed out the window because there's always a spell, rune, curse, hex or some kinda of other influence. It makes what seem stupid like a chainmail bikini smart because it's been enchanted to protect the user's body.

Whoa, okay, leaving aside the amusing image of enchanted metal underwear projecting a force-field of protection on its user, because I'll be saving that to laugh at later on my own. You think a chainmail bikini is smart? Or easy to move in?

I've run around in one before. I wholeheartedly disagree.

And what of those instances where the world in which said bikini exists HAS no magical MacGuffin to bestow it with magical protective powers? Still a smart idea?

 

[4173]

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?

No, that's when it pushes past 'unrealistic' into 'just plain stupid'.

Good fantasy has a balance that's still grounded in something we can relate to and understand at its core, while suspending belief enough for the origins of creatures, magic, etc.

Emphasis on GOOD fantasy.

still wizards wearing robes have realistically the same amount of protection as a man or woman wearing nothing but a loincloth and the blood of their foes. If you can't back up the logic between why a wizard's robe can absorb fire. Then why the concept of some armor that shows off some T and A is so hard to grasp. Shit in most fantasy male barbarians wear less then females. So I guess it just plain stupid that they can fight many enemies with armor and win because they lacked armor.

The barbarian is often a bit different. It isn't so much that they can't get hit or hurt, but they don't care if they do.

Whereas the chainmail bikini is supposedly offering protection disproportionate to its coverage.

 

[TheDooD]

still wizards wearing robes have realistically the same amount of protection as a man or woman wearing nothing but a loincloth and the blood of their foes. If you can't back up the logic between why a wizard's robe can absorb fire. Then why the concept of some armor that shows off some T and A is so hard to grasp. Shit in most fantasy male barbarians wear less then females. So I guess it just plain stupid that they can fight many enemies with armor and win because they lacked armor.

I agree that charging into battle with a loin cloth is just as stupid as a female warrior wearing a bikini. And they generally go hand-in-hand. Which is partly why I'm not a huge champion of that style of story anyway.

The 'concept' of T&A armor is not hard to grasp, by the way. It's VERY easy to grasp. It's still stupid and without basis in any sort of logic.

RE: Wizard robes. Most wizards do not get into close-quarter combat, and do not have to deal with axes and swords. They're traditionally long-range fighters, with more emphasis on intellect and magic than the strength to lug around heavy plate armor like their warrior counterparts. Enchanted light armor, like robes imbued with magical protective properties, DOES make sense, and there IS logic behind it.

The thing is also most of that high level armor in general is enchanted as well so it can be something more revealing while allowing the same protection. Like with the massive tank like armor of a Paladin or Knight normally no normal person could wear it because it too heavy. yet its made lighter due to magically enhancements so while on the users it seems light due to magic while to others it's extremely heavy. It's the same concept with the revealing female armor or light armor in general it's enhanced with magic to make it as strong as the greatest heavy armor while still being light as it normally was. When Magic is involved logic is tossed out the window because there's always a spell, rune, curse, hex or some kinda of other influence. It makes what seem stupid like a chainmail bikini smart because it's been enchanted to protect the user's body.

Whoa, okay, leaving aside the amusing image of enchanted metal underwear projecting a force-field of protection on its user, because I'll be saving that to laugh at later on my own. You think a chainmail bikini is smart? Or easy to move in?

I've run around in one before. I wholeheartedly disagree.

And what of those instances where the world in which said bikini exists HAS no magical MacGuffin to bestow it with magical protective powers? Still a smart idea?

Of course without the magic its pointless armor but since it fantasy you have to remember it can be. Also It maybe the character's choice the wear said armor despise of it utility or lack of, clothes is only part of the character.

 

[Kuchinawa212]

I loved "Meh" swing to prove it's effectiveness.

I don't even think it made contact.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Meaning women who were going out into the fray would actually want to cover their breasts up instead of leave them hanging out?

Yeah, but it's actually quite difficult to cover up the breasts - equally with some guy's bellys. Even with modern kevlar, it's quite a bang on the boob if it takes a rubber bullet or something.

Either we go with the realistic version; in which there's ONE set of armour that sort of protects - and women can only get in if they're hiding as males.

Or we go with the fantastic option, where boobs are like teflon, guys arms have melons on them, and fireballs don't break every single law of physics.

Fantasy in general is based on unrealistic interpretations taken to dreamlike lengths; so while you will have tiny metal rings around your nipples, you also won't have any cellulite, black eyes or back pain. Rough with the smooth, so to speak.

Think about what we're going to have to do with only a loin-cloth...especially the smell...

 

[Terminal Blue]

still wizards wearing robes have realistically the same amount of protection as a man or woman wearing nothing but a loincloth and the blood of their foes.

Depends what the robe is made of..

Wearing a lot of padding is a basic principle of any armour. Cutting through loose cloth is difficult because it will simply flex and wrap around the blade. Wrapping multiple layers of loose cloth around something means that instead of being hit by sharp metal you're being hit by sharp metal wrapped in cloth. Still painful, but less likely to chop you open.

Silk is also a special case, because while it's not very good for padding its tensile strength is extremely high. While it might not protect you much it means that if you get hit by an arrow the silk will wrap around the arrowhead in the wound. This not only protects you from infection to some degree, but means you can safely remove the arrowhead without risk of leaving it in the wound.

Cloth is important in armour.