Sexy fantasy armor...

[Thaluikhain]

If you want it grounded, why not have more female topless warriors the same as the male?

"The same as the male".

In the vast majority of cases, the men won't be wearing anything like what the women are. Which is the point.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

If you want it grounded, why not have more female topless warriors the same as the male?

"The same as the male".

In the vast majority of cases, the men won't be wearing anything like what the women are. Which is the point.

No, of course the vast majority do not wear the same thing, women and men ARE different. We do not have to turn the women into men to be considered equals that is just as bad as shaming them to hide their bodies. However, even when historically they were both topless, they STILL cover the women. I have no issue having Joan of arc dressed as a man because she was supposed to be. However, many of the Gaul women fought topless or even naked, but they keep putting clothes on them even in historical games. I find the idea that they think they have to cover them the problem in the first place.

 

[Zhukov]

You do wear skorts in winter here. But then again you can go jet skiing on Christmas here in Texas. What you wear/ do not wear in winter depends on where you live. LOL

Spoiler: WELL FINE THEN!

I'll just be down here. 3000 miles south of the equator. Hiking in my trousers and thermal leggings.

Moving on...

The reality is currently in the world we live in there is widespread shaming of women and intolerance of the female form. There is not widespread telling women to hike in heels, that is the difference here. Women in reality ARE being bullied to hide their bodies. Even in many games that has male gladiators topless they cover the woman's breasts. If you want it grounded, why not have more female topless warriors the same as the male? How exactly do you choose what is and is not grounded in " fantasy"? There can be a giant demon, but no topless women gladiators?

Intolerance of the female form? Really?

Is that a Texas thing too? Because I seem to see the female form proudly displayed just about everywhere, from beaches to billboards to art galleries.

And I have no problem with that in general.

As I said earlier, it's when they try to stick it in places it doesn't fit (once again, usually a depiction of a battlefield of some sort) that I start rolling my eyes.



Oh, and for the record, topless female gladiators would actually make more sense than most such examples. Real gladiators were not armed or armoured in a purely practical fashion. They were performers, not soldiers. Sure, they killed each other, but they were chiefly there to put on a show and sell tickets.

 

[CloudAtlas]

LOL! There is not much practical, classy or smexy about that armor. Nothing protecting her from getting her arms chopped off and the crap at the bottom would force her torso to get twisted and make her extremely easy to take down No head protection either. Having personal taste is fine, but that does not suddenly make it practical. You like less skin, Some like more. That has nothing to do with being practical.

There are perfectly good reasons for not wanting to wear a helmet (obstructing vision and head movement), armor for the upper arms (obstructiong movement; it is more important to protect the lower arms).

If there are elves and magic, there is no "reality".

Warriors in these worlds often wear heavy armor. Hence, according to the internal logic of this world, heavy armor conveys some benefits that outweigh its disadvantages - namely, protection. If you have magic in your world, and people still wear these heavy armors, then it must be because they convey some benefit that magic cannot, or because they don't have access to such magic, or are not willing to use magic for other reasons, or whatever. Whatever the reason, female warriors, provided women are not portrayed as substantially physically weaker, which they rarely are, would thus generally want to wear the same armor. If they don't in this world, then the world is not internally consistent. Which is bad.

And nobody in their right mind would ever want to wear heavy armor with cleavage windows, i.e. exposing the most vital and incidentially pretty rigid area - all the disadvantages, few of the benefits.

The reality is currently in the world we live in there is widespread shaming of women and intolerance of the female form. There is not widespread telling women to hike in heels, that is the difference here. Women in reality ARE being bullied to hide their bodies.

Isn't most female clothing pretty tight and form-fitting nowadays, in the western world anyway? How does that fit to the supposed "intolerance of the female form"? And as for games, or comics, or movies... don't they even 'emphasize' the female form... a lot?

Yes, there are many countries where women are forced to wear pretty different attire. Like Burkhas. However, most of us here do not live in those countries, nor do many of the people who consume said fantasy games.

 

[the December King]

I'm always impressed with armor that is rendered or otherwise addressed with an evident sense of realism in a fantasy setting, heck, even when just the attention to details like equipment and a sense of practicality being applied to the entities, is present- as a non gender specific aside, traditional medieval-styled castles are often rendered useless in fantasy settings when winged dragons and other truly giant and mobile entities exist(one notable recent anime exception would be "Attack on Titan", but the walled-cities are equally fantastic in scope, and it is a crucial element of the story).

Having said that, I have always tried to rationalize sexualized 'armor' as not armor at all, but fashionable attire, or a distraction, a means to fool the unwary in single combat situations. As an interesting example, Red Sonja was one of the original chainmail bikini girls, but she also tended to travel in deserts and hot climates, where the men also didn't wear much armor due to overheating, and in several larger battles she would suit up in more realistic/protective armors. In the meantime? Hot redhead in bikini with sword, underestimated by guards/bullies/mercenaries/sentries/etc.

This may seem quibbly of me but it's an important distinction to make. There's nothing wrong or degrading or misogynistic about women being depicted as sexy. Far, far too many young men have this false notion that feminism is anti-sexy, despite the fact that the anti-sexy movements in feminism for the most part lost most of their support decades ago and haven't been a going concern since. There seems to be a failure by many young men who comment on feminism and feminist concerns to distinguish between a woman being depicted as sexy in addition to all of her other attributes (or indeed, because of her other attributes), and a woman being depicted solely as a sex-object to be consumed by the presumed male-heavy audience.

An interesting point, DANGER... I'm blue skying this, but it might have a lot to do with the idea that young men, as with young women or indeed anyone, rarely enjoy being told what to like and what to dislike, or being told what they like or dislike is 'wrong', or some other word that essentially means wrong, or carries a similar negative connotation... So said men might find themselves uninterested in considering, or being told to consider, a vast array of feminist-approved elements to aesthetic, skillsets and empowerments? And again, the main drive of feminism on the internet might not be as loud or obnoxious as the few extreme feminists who champion anti-sexy, as seems to be the case with vocal members of the MRA seeming to champion mysogynist agendas. As is often the case, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

...

'Scorn grease', I guess.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

You do wear skorts in winter here. But then again you can go jet skiing on Christmas here in Texas. What you wear/ do not wear in winter depends on where you live. LOL

Spoiler: WELL FINE THEN!

I'll just be down here. 3000 miles south of the equator. Hiking in my trousers and thermal leggings.

Moving on...

The reality is currently in the world we live in there is widespread shaming of women and intolerance of the female form. There is not widespread telling women to hike in heels, that is the difference here. Women in reality ARE being bullied to hide their bodies. Even in many games that has male gladiators topless they cover the woman's breasts. If you want it grounded, why not have more female topless warriors the same as the male? How exactly do you choose what is and is not grounded in " fantasy"? There can be a giant demon, but no topless women gladiators?

Intolerance of the female form? Really?

Is that a Texas thing too? Because I seem to see the female form proudly displayed just about everywhere, from beaches to billboards to art galleries.

And I have no problem with that in general.

As I said earlier, it's when they try to stick it in places it doesn't fit (once again, usually a depiction of a battlefield of some sort) that I start rolling my eyes.



Oh, and for the record, topless female gladiators would actually make more sense than most such examples. Real gladiators were not armed or armoured in a purely practical fashion. They were performers, not soldiers. Sure, they killed each other, but they were chiefly there to put on a show and sell tickets.

In many nations where the Abrahamic religions have had strong influence, they force women to cover their breasts and shame them as "sluts and whores" if they show skin. This is bullying them to conform to anothers beliefs and I find the view that one should force their beliefs onto others in such a manner intolerable.

Women tribal warriors in Americas, Africa, Gauls, Celts and others also fought topless or naked and they were not performers as well. I use the gladiators as an example because I see those represented in more games, however, more often women are left out entirely as well.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

LOL! There is not much practical, classy or smexy about that armor. Nothing protecting her from getting her arms chopped off and the crap at the bottom would force her torso to get twisted and make her extremely easy to take down No head protection either. Having personal taste is fine, but that does not suddenly make it practical. You like less skin, Some like more. That has nothing to do with being practical.

There are perfectly good reasons for not wanting to wear a helmet (obstructing vision and head movement), armor for the upper arms (obstructiong movement; it is more important to protect the lower arms).

If there are elves and magic, there is no "reality".

Warriors in these worlds often wear heavy armor. Hence, according to the internal logic of this world, heavy armor conveys some benefits that outweigh its disadvantages - namely, protection. If you have magic in your world, and people still wear these heavy armors, then it must be because they convey some benefit that magic cannot, or because they don't have access to such magic, or are not willing to use magic for other reasons, or whatever. Whatever the reason, female warriors, provided women are not portrayed as substantially physically weaker, which they rarely are, would thus generally want to wear the same armor. If they don't in this world, then the world is not internally consistent. Which is bad.

And nobody in their right mind would ever want to wear heavy armor with cleavage windows, i.e. exposing the most vital and incidentially pretty rigid area - all the disadvantages, few of the benefits.

The reality is currently in the world we live in there is widespread shaming of women and intolerance of the female form. There is not widespread telling women to hike in heels, that is the difference here. Women in reality ARE being bullied to hide their bodies.

Isn't most female clothing pretty tight and form-fitting nowadays, in the western world anyway? How does that fit to the supposed "intolerance of the female form"?

Yes, there are many countries where women are forced to wear pretty different attire. Like Burkhas. However, most of us here do not live in those countries, nor do many of the people who consume said fantasy games.

After actually trying to put on heavy armor in real life, I have no desire to wear it in real life or a game with or without a cleavage window. LOL
No, more female clothing isn't very form fitting. When you wear " form fitting" clothing they call you " slutty" and try to bully you not to.

 

[Azahul]

If heavy armor isn't going to make them extremely slow and in-agile, and terribly susceptible to fire and electricity, why would wearing nothing more than a magic defense amulet make them not as protected as an unenchanted heavy armor? Most of the problems with this reasoning in games is what people think they know about armor in these games has nothing to do with the reality of actually wearing armor in reality. Seeing a character swim in heavy armor in a game has me rolling on the floor laughing at the absurdity of it.

It certainly depends on the universe, but in the scenario you describe no one should be bothering to wear armour at all. In a universe where mundane combat is more common than the magical form, then the traditional historical forms of armour would still be entirely applicable.

Swimming in heavy armour is a separate issue, and also something I agree is completely absurd. Soldiers drowned in the world wars from the weight of their packs, metal plate is going to send you straight to the bottom.

I'm just not entirely sure what kind of point you're trying to make though. The presence of magic and elves does not automatically mean you are now in a universe where the laws of physics no longer apply. If the prevalence of magical things is so great that mundane combat is rendered obsolete, then certainly, different standards of armour would apply. On the other hand, if your main problem in a battle is going to be a man (or elf) trying to stab you, then the historical example works just as well as it does historically. It depends on the kind of universe the characters exist in.

 

[BathorysGraveland2]

Don't underestimate psychologic effects. If your hussars are already a feared force, and the enemy soldiers hear the ominous humming getting louder and louder... adding to the fact that being at the wrong end of a cavalry charge is generally a pretty uncomfortable experience in itself... it could be worth it.

If you paint your shield in a way to intimidate the enemy, then there is no negative affect to that should it fail. If you have your armour made in such a way to frighten the enemy, but is still practical (Corinthian hoplite helmet), there is no negative affect should it fail. If a Hussar finds himself in prolonged combat with an enemy, and the intimidation affect fails, it's become a huge weakness. Much like certain Gallic soldiers who fought naked to scare the enemy. If that affect doesn't work, they have created a large flaw for themselves that a skilled enemy can and will exploit.

Weapons will get hooked onto those wings in combat, and the Hussar will loose his balance or get knocked around because of it. I strongly doubt they would have gone into battle with such a huge target for an enemy to exploit. But a painted shield.. what is there to exploit? Hell, even fierce war cries do not lead one to disadvantage should it fail. But a horned helmet, or massive wings of your armour (or spikes) certainly would.

See what I mean?

 

[mecegirl]

In defense of skimpy gear in fantasy settings (and some sci-fi with giant mecha), most of the larger fantasy monsters could easily one-shot someone in full plate armor under realistic circumstances. When fighting those monsters (20' tall cyclopes, 50' long dragons etc...) physical defense would mean nothing and mobility would mean everything. So realistically, it would be better to fight them buck naked.

Agreed. You could be naked and be just as defensive as a guy in a tank going up against the monsters you are expected to fight. I see the issue of trying to claim " practicality" in covering the womenz in a fantasy game just as an extension of the shaming of women in reality that already exists. It is no different than trying to throw burkas on everyone and calling it a day. Just now they are doing it in the fantasy realm as well.

Can you please stop throwing around the term burka out of context? It's both ridiculous and culturally insensitive.

As for your arguments. I have no clue how you got to that conclusion despite the fact that people are telling you its for other reasons. That is arguing in bad faith. It's blatantly obvious what is going on when all the male warriors are covered up and the female warriors are not. It doesn't matter that you don't view nudity as sexual (hint, it in of itself isn't and I doubt many would argue that). We all know that the reason designers put female characters in less is to sexulize them, not for practicalities sake. One does not design armor that looks like bathing suits, lingerie, and fetish gear for practical reasons. They do it because it will remind players of women they find sexy in the real world. You would do better to argue for more male characters to show skin. They are the ones that are consistently covered up per the traditions of the fantasy genre.

Since the genre pulls inspiration from western medieval settings and the warriors did cover up...because unlike Texas the weather isn't consistently warm in most of Europe. And defecting swords and arrows are still a major concern. One can worry about mobility when the dragon comes flying down...For the most part warriors in fantasy need protection against human weapons, or even the teeth and claws of lesser monsters before they make it to the dragon. They have to worry about foot soldiers with spears as well as the mage all the way in the back of the formation. And well made armor doesn't hinder someones movement anyway...

 

[CloudAtlas]

After actually trying to put on heavy armor in real life, I have no desire to wear it in real life or a game with or without a cleavage window. LOL
No, more female clothing isn't very form fitting. When you wear " form fitting" clothing they call you " slutty" and try to bully you not to.

I'd be the last person to deny that sexism does exist and does matter, but really? Most young women around here (Germany & Denmark) wear skinny jeans and form-fitting clothing, and I don't think they're generally called sluts or are bullied for that.

And I wouldn't want to wear heavy armor either, because I'm not physically strong enough, but I don't see how that has any bearing on whether a trained warrior would want to. Given your statement I'm referring here, and previous ones, I'm not sure you're discussing in earnest and in good faith (anymore).

 

[CloudAtlas]

See what I mean?

I see what you mean. My point was just that sometimes warriors/soldiers do find it worthwhile to forego some practicality for the sake of psychological effect.

Why would you stuck sirens on a dive bomber otherwise, for example, as the Germans did with their Stukas in WWII? It just warns the enemy not only that an attack is imminent, but also about the exact kind of attack.

 

[Artemicion]

I like sexy fantasy armor. I also like women in sexy fantasy armor. I put sexy fantasy armor mods in my Skyrim to shake things up and make it less boring.

There is nothing wrong with the above three sentences.

 

[The Lunatic]

I like sexy fantasy armor. I also like women in sexy fantasy armor. I put sexy fantasy armor mods in my Skyrim to shake things up and make it less boring.

There is nothing wrong with the above three sentences.

Yeaah...

Sure...

Not creepy at all.

Not at all.

 

[Artemicion]

Yeaah...

Sure...

Not creepy at all.

Not at all.

Feel free to explain how that's creepy.

 

[The Lunatic]

Feel free to explain how that's creepy.

You're playing a game where you go around brutally murdering people with swords, clubs, axes, bows and magic.

And you want them to either look "sexy" whilst you're killing them, or for your character to look "sexy" whilst you're killing others.

That's pretty creepy, yo'.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

In defense of skimpy gear in fantasy settings (and some sci-fi with giant mecha), most of the larger fantasy monsters could easily one-shot someone in full plate armor under realistic circumstances. When fighting those monsters (20' tall cyclopes, 50' long dragons etc...) physical defense would mean nothing and mobility would mean everything. So realistically, it would be better to fight them buck naked.

Agreed. You could be naked and be just as defensive as a guy in a tank going up against the monsters you are expected to fight. I see the issue of trying to claim " practicality" in covering the womenz in a fantasy game just as an extension of the shaming of women in reality that already exists. It is no different than trying to throw burkas on everyone and calling it a day. Just now they are doing it in the fantasy realm as well.

Can you please stop throwing around the term burka out of context? It's both ridiculous and culturally insensitive.

As for your arguments. I have no clue how you got to that conclusion despite the fact that people are telling you its for other reasons. That is arguing in bad faith. It's blatantly obvious what is going on when all the male warriors are covered up and the female warriors are not. It doesn't matter that you don't view nudity as sexual (hint, it in of itself isn't and I doubt many would argue that). We all know that the reason designers put female characters in less is to sexulize them, not for practicalities sake. One does not design armor that looks like bathing suits, lingerie, and fetish gear for practical reasons. They do it because it will remind players of women they find sexy in the real world. You would do better to argue for more male characters to show skin. They are the ones that are consistently covered up per the traditions of the fantasy genre.

Since the genre pulls inspiration from western medieval settings and the warriors did cover up...because unlike Texas the weather isn't consistently warm in most of Europe. And defecting swords and arrows are still a major concern. One can worry about mobility when the dragon comes flying down...For the most part warriors in fantasy need protection against human weapons, or even the teeth and claws of lesser monsters before they make it to the dragon. They have to worry about foot soldiers with spears as well as the mage all the way in the back of the formation. And well made armor doesn't hinder someones movement anyway...

I am not throwing the term burka around out of context, when my friend and coworker was forced to wear one or be killed and risked her life and the lives of those she cared about to free herself from such things and would still be killed today if she attempted to return to visit her own family I do believe I use the term quite accurately. What I find ridiculous and insensitive is to downplay the effect on the lives of the women who have endured and continue to endure such things. No woman should be shamed into hiding her body. There is nothing shameful about a womans body.

Maybe it is a mater of perspective, my pov as a female native american I see too often women are forced to conform to others beliefs public and private shaming of women, men trying to tell their girlfriends what they should wear and see people actually being uncomfortable with women's skin even in games? It is absurd. Maybe they need exposed to MORE nudity to desensitize them to the fact that naked isn't shameful.

When discussing traditional medieval settings, how could they also have Romans, Greeks, Celts and Gauls without having nudity being standard when in reality it was? I was under the impression that was considered Europe as well.

 

[Artemicion]

You're playing a game where you go around brutally murdering people with swords, clubs, axes, bows and magic.

And you want them to either look "sexy" whilst you're killing them, or for your character to look "sexy" whilst you're killing others.

That's pretty creepy, yo'.

Because nobody has ever looked sexy while on a dangerous job, right? Sorry, James Bond, Jason Borne, Jack Bauer, Black Widow, half the members of the X-Men and the entirety of the characters of various comic book universes, not to mention any Hollywood actor/actress starring in an action movie: You're not allowed to look sexy while on the job because Lunatic here says it's creepy.

What's that, Emma? Oh, I see. Lunatic, Emma Frost [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2c/Emma_Frost_in_current_costume.jpg] doesn't like your arbitrary rules about creepyness and is going to keep freezing people to death (which she does staggeringly often) with her mutant magic while wearing her sexy pajamas. Feel free to keep calling people creepy, but I don't think her stance will budge. I don't think mine will either.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

Women tribal warriors in Americas, Africa, Gauls, Celts and others also fought topless or naked and they were not performers as well. I use the gladiators as an example because I see those represented in more games, however, more often women are left out entirely as well.

And what, exactly, does tribal warriors going topless have to do with the types of armor that are usually seen in fantasy works? There's a big damn difference between showing some tribe where no one wears shirts and showing a culture inspired by medieval Europe where men wear actual armor and women wear some kind of skintight metal lingerie into battle. Internal consistency is important. If your work has established that it works under the majority of real world physics and that sharp objects still hurt skin, putting metal between sharp objects and skin in a practical way is fucking important to your work and shouldn't take a back seat to showing off some woman's cleavage.

Maybe you should pull a bit back on thinking everyone who wants female characters to be dressed more practically is just slut shaming and remember we're talking about situations where practicality is more important than sexuality.

I was under the impression Romans, Greeks, Celts and Gauls were a part of medieval Europe. How is practical to ignore how many actually fought in medieval Europe? Of course it wouldn't be slut shaming if people were okay with both full armor AND topless warriors due to historical accuracy. It IS slut shaming when they say that it is "eye popping" "stripperific" or comparing looking at the female body to looking at porn.

 

[mecegirl]

I am not throwing the term burka around out of context, when my friend and coworker was forced to wear one or be killed and risked her life and the lives of those she cared about to free herself from such things and would still be killed today if she attempted to return to visit her own family I do believe I use the term quite accurately. What I find ridiculous and insensitive is to downplay the effect on the lives of the women who have endured and continue to endure such things. No woman should be shamed into hiding her body. There is nothing shameful about a womans body.

Maybe it is a mater of perspective, my pov as a female native american I see too often women are forced to conform to others beliefs public and private shaming of women, men trying to tell their girlfriends what they should wear and see people actually being uncomfortable with women's skin even in games? It is absurd. Maybe they need exposed to MORE nudity to desensitize them to the fact that naked isn't shameful.

When discussing traditional medieval settings, how could they also have Romans, Greeks, Celts and Gauls without having nudity being standard when in reality it was? I was under the impression that was considered Europe as well.

Do you think your friend appreciates you using them as a way to "win" an argument on the internet? That's what I'm talking about. Those issues are very important so bringing it up so causally is offensive. You are downplaying it by bringing it up in this discussion when no one is trying to cover up fantasy women in order to hide their bodies anyway. Stop putting words in peoples mouths. And stop arguing against a point no one made.

I am female. I am also Black. I understand what you mean. But this has nothing to do with female skin or shaming women. Or are you naive enough to think that the reason why that only women are under dressed in these settings is to show how "liberated" they are and not to cater to western male libidos? No one thinks that in a setting where wearing less armor is the norm that women should be covered up. Show me where anyone has said such a thing. But when all the dudes are in plate armor and the women are wearing metal shaped like lingerie, then yes, it is a obvious double standard. All cultures have their conventions and reasons for dressing the way that they do, so consistency is required. It's the reason why no one cares that Red Sonja is in a chain mail bikini.