Tag: article

Posted on

bikiniarmorbattledamage:

ornamentedbeing:

Topless dueling?

I know it’s a long text but it’s worth the read!

“The most intriguing duel fought between women, and the sole one that featured exposed breasts, took place in August 1892 in Verduz, the capitol of Liechtenstein, between Princess Pauline Metternich and the Countess Kielmannsegg. It has gone down in history as the first “emancipated duel” because all parties involved, including the principals and their seconds were female… Before the proceedings began, the baroness pointed out that many insignificant injuries in duels often became septic due to strips of clothing being driven into the wound by the point of a sword. To counter this danger she prudently suggested that both parties should fight stripped of any garments above the waist. Certainly, Baroness Lubinska was ahead of her time, taking an even more radical take on the (at the time) widely dismissed theories of British surgeon Joseph Lister, who in 1870 revolutionized surgical procedures with the introduction of antiseptic. 

With the precautions Baroness Lubinska recommended, the topless women duelists were less likely to suffer from an infection; indeed, it was a smart idea to fight semiclad. Given the practicality of the baroness’ suggestion and the “emancipated” nature of the duel, it was agreed that the women would disrobe—after all, there would be no men present to ogle them. For the women, the decision to unbutton the tops of their dresses was not sexual; it was simply a way of preventing a duel of first blood from becoming a duel to the death.

… 

It is humorous that most recounts of this historic event fail to mention two important things: the winner of the duel (Princess Metternich) and the reason why the women came to arms in the first place—they disagreed over the floral arrangements for an upcoming musical exhibition.”

^ best part of the entire article. 

Emphasis mine.

BABD blog usually advocates for covering female warriors as a protective measure, but here’s a proof that taking everything off is not a bad idea either.

Anything, be it full plate armor or full frontal nudity, makes more sense than chafing, pinching, improbably skin-tight METAL BIKINI (or anything of that sort). 

I got reminded of this thanks to reader Kanonite, whose comment brought up a helpful quote from TV Tropes page on Full Frontal Assault trope:

Oddly enough there was a good REASON to fight in the nude… Before modern medicine, a majority of deaths from combat were caused by cuts and stab wounds getting infected. Often this was because the weapon forced a scrap of clothing into the wound, where it would fester… If you aren’t wearing any clothing, this can’t happen!

This week’s throwback, one of my favorite and most informative reblogs on BABD: historical evidence that fighting topless against melee weapons is a much better and (relatively speaking) safer idea than insisting on “modest” wear that’s there basically to just cover the nipples.

Can we have our historically accurate bare-chested barbarian ladies already, please?

~Ozzie

Posted on

So, I have been having this discussion in my fandom, and people defend the bikini armour as being “historical accurate” since some cultures “went naked into battle”. How true is this, actually?

It is certainly true some people went naked or near naked into battle, but not alongside warriors in proper armor and not in battle bikinis. There are some other important factors involved in their choice to do so.  Firstly it usually only in cases where they didn’t have access to armor and/or the battles were largely ceremonial or otherwise non-lethal. 

Armor is developed in response to weapons and usually the first forms of defense were shields.  So if you had no nudity taboo and hadn’t developed armor due to lack of resources or lack of regular conflict, you didn’t really have much choice in the matter.  Particularly since your weapons are usually tools that are made for hunting or other work.

In areas where this happened, usually the battles were no war in the sense of systematic killing of the enemy but more demonstrations of strength to intimidate others – usually over a piece of farm land or livestock.  It was used to resolve grievances and sometimes even as a regular sport.

Usually this happened where people needed everyone to work together in order to provide essential, which means you also don’t need any more land than you already control and work every day.  When you have an argument with your neighbours, you settle it to both sides satisfaction so you can resume living next to one another.

The ability to make sophisticated items like bikini armor (which is surprisingly complicated) comes from civilizations where they have sufficient surplus of resources and people they can have specialists who can trade goods and ideas. By the time you reach this level you also a real incentive to try to obtain more and more land.

At that point civilizations can start developing dedicated weapons, training dedicated soldiers (to expand your nation or defend against invaders) and their battles start to involve countless fatalities. Then it becomes worthwhile to begin the cycle of making armor to protect against the enemies weapons, and weapons to beat your enemies armor.

TL;DR: If you’re in a society that has warriors and the know-how and resources to make bikini armor, you’re in a society where your warriors wear actual armor.  There were civilizations that fought nude or near nude, but they didn’t have bikini armor, fancy swords, professional warriors or sophisticated combat techniques.

– wincenworks

Posted on

meishuu:

So, I have been having this discussion in my fandom, and people defend the bikini armour as being “historical accurate” since some cultures “went naked into battle”. How true is this, actually?

It is certainly true some people went naked or near naked into battle, but not alongside warriors in proper armor and not in battle bikinis. There are some other important factors involved in their choice to do so.  Firstly it usually only in cases where they didn’t have access to armor and/or the battles were largely ceremonial or otherwise non-lethal. 

Armor is developed in response to weapons and usually the first forms of defense were shields.  So if you had no nudity taboo and hadn’t developed armor due to lack of resources or lack of regular conflict, you didn’t really have much choice in the matter.  Particularly since your weapons are usually tools that are made for hunting or other work.

In areas where this happened, usually the battles were no war in the sense of systematic killing of the enemy but more demonstrations of strength to intimidate others – usually over a piece of farm land or livestock.  It was used to resolve grievances and sometimes even as a regular sport.

Usually this happened where people needed everyone to work together in order to provide essential, which means you also don’t need any more land than you already control and work every day.  When you have an argument with your neighbours, you settle it to both sides satisfaction so you can resume living next to one another.

The ability to make sophisticated items like bikini armor (which is surprisingly complicated) comes from civilizations where they have sufficient surplus of resources and people they can have specialists who can trade goods and ideas. By the time you reach this level you also a real incentive to try to obtain more and more land.

At that point civilizations can start developing dedicated weapons, training dedicated soldiers (to expand your nation or defend against invaders) and their battles start to involve countless fatalities. Then it becomes worthwhile to begin the cycle of making armor to protect against the enemies weapons, and weapons to beat your enemies armor.

TL;DR: If you’re in a society that has warriors and the know-how and resources to make bikini armor, you’re in a society where your warriors wear actual armor.  There were civilizations that fought nude or near nude, but they didn’t have bikini armor, fancy swords, professional warriors or sophisticated combat techniques.

– wincenworks

Posted on

Lara Croft still doesn’t know how to put a damn top on

Lara Croft still doesn’t know how to put a damn top on

One day… one day we may see a Tomb Raider game where the Lara has gear that looks the bare minimum for what she should have brought or will be about a power fantasy.  The current trend of making everything gritty and “realistic” while having Lara in a tank top and basically slowly killing herself by scratches and abrasions really needs to go.

In the early games she at least came across as an unstoppable badass… now she comes across as unable to understand how clothing works.

– wincenworks

Posted on

Lara Croft still doesn’t know how to put a damn top on

Lara Croft still doesn’t know how to put a damn top on

One day… one day we may see a Tomb Raider game where the Lara has gear that looks the bare minimum for what she should have brought or will be about a power fantasy.  The current trend of making everything gritty and “realistic” while having Lara in a tank top and basically slowly killing herself by scratches and abrasions really needs to go.

In the early games she at least came across as an unstoppable badass… now she comes across as unable to understand how clothing works.

– wincenworks

Posted on

A Jimquisition episode I was wondering whether or not reference here for some time now.

Will Jim’s search for a female video game protagonist who doesn’t fit the narrow criteria of gendered double standards be fruitful?

~Ozzie

I feel the “she must be pretty” is the first step that leads to the slippery slope of over-sexualization and ends with polished gold battle thongs.  It skews priorities from word go and immediately wipes out countless options before they can even be considered.

– wincenworks

(Source: https://www.youtube.com/)
Posted on

Survey Shows Even Teenage Boys Think Women Are Over-Sexualized in Video Games

Survey Shows Even Teenage Boys Think Women Are Over-Sexualized in Video Games

themarysue:

A survey has found that most teenage boys—despite common wisdom to the contrary—don’t want women to be over-sexualized in their video games.

This survey has been doing the rounds of the media since it got featured in this little publication called Time Magazine.  For those interested in the actual research methods and data, there’s more information here at Polygon (including links to the entire presentation).  They also posted a response to all the publicity here.

All in all it’s more compelling evidence to support our stance that sex does not sell anything but sex.  This was something that was known (to his great disappointment) by one of the original market researches in the 1960s.

Creators, the truth is that are no shortcuts on the road to creative success, no matter what the creepy marketing guy or the person who won’t leave the comments section tell you.

– wincenworks