The hilarious front line in the tragic war against ridiculous female armor
Tag: armor design
Posted on
Just saying “weh weh this isn’t actually an issue, let the designers do what they want” is actually ignoring the cultural context in which this bikini armour exists. It is a classic example of women as a [sexual] commodity to be sold, and gives the o.k to treating women like said commodity. That sexy armour is the default is concerning in itself. Is it not possible to be sexually attracted to a girl in armour designed for fighting rather than sex??? The bikini armour problem exists in a culture which is obsessed with sexualising women at every turn. Male warriors get to be “rugged”, “dark”, “complex”, an “anti-hero”, while female warriors get to be “sexy”, and on the rare occasion they do have the aforementioned characteristics, they are added as a secondary characteristic to that sexiness, or as an afterthought.
“It’s not an issue, blah blah.” No, it is an issue, it contributes to an overall culture. “Why do we have to debate this?” sounds a lot like “I don’t want to think about the attitudes and beliefs in which art functions, and ways in which certain art may be damaging.”
“Historically, women didn’t fight/wear armour.” Congratulations, you’ve completely missed the point. We are talking about fantasy genres here, worlds where slaying dragons, leading campaigns of hundreds of soldiers, traipsing through a haunted forest are normal occurrences and yet we can’t treat women like people rather than toys. Plus, “historically”, you have people like Joan of Arc, and outside of Western history there are lots of cultures in which women fought battles.
You know why it irks me? Because that shit ain’t practical, and hell, it doesn’t look comfortable either. Sure, it looks nice, gives the bad guys something to look at, but will it work in a fight? Will it protect the user against swords or arrows or whatever else is being thrown their way? They better goddamn hope those chain mail bikinis are enchanted with a force field, cause that’s not going to save anyone from any lethal hit.
They’re a badass and have the skills to not get hit? I call bullshit. Even the most seasoned warrior (minus the Greeks) knows better than to give an opponent any possible opening. Armor is there for a reason, and that’s to cover for you when and if you make a mistake or there’s something you cannot deflect.
Not to mention, I think having cold hunks of steel rubbing against my girl parts would be the most uncomfortable and unbearable thing ever. I hate underwire bras enough, but a bra made entirely out of steel wire? Haha, no, There is no way that would work, even for aesthetic purposes. Not to mention the chaffing in the nether regions, good god. Metal chaffs. Knights wore clothing underneath their armor and chain mail for a reason.
Oh, and just because it covers doesn’t mean it’s practical, while we’re at it.
This breastplate is a bit of an improvement, but still has major flaws. The way that it curves around each breast would direct blows inwards, closer to the heart. Armor can be pierced, and after enough hits, guess where this breastplate is most likely to be pierced? That’s right, the cleavage. That’s why armor tends to be very rounded, so blows are deflected away from vital organs and such. Makes sense? I think so, too.
What is good female armor? Any armor that men would wear, basically. Like I said, there tends to be a lot of room in the front for the girls, so there should be no problem fitting them in. Here’s some examples of good (or better) armor:
Oh, and this little jewel~
So yes, you can be a badass, feminine heroine- with the proper, practical protection on.No excuses.
A new rule of thumb:
If you wouldn’t look impressive holding a bunny, you’re not going to look impressive holding a weapon.
But let’s set some things straight first: armor is done primarily to be protective. It sure helps if the design makes the wearer intimidating enough to make the opponents surrender right away, but at its core it was invented as a physical barrier between a person and whatever or whoever threatens their life or health.
That doesn’t mean there isn’t a place for decorative armor in the history. Highly ornamented muscle cuirass (male equivalent of boobplate) was designed to impress and worn by high-standing officers during non-battle special occasions, like parades.
That said, in the world of fiction the distinction between purely functional and decorative armor is not necessary. It’s not real, and unless the setting of choice is gritty life-like naturalism, the armor (and any other design) needs just to be believable, not realistic. We commented on it before.
This is where those two bingo squares come in. Fictional worlds, especially the more fantastic ones, can be stylized, sometimes even to ridiculous degree, as long as all of the world is consistent with its level of stylization. That’s why it’s not inherently bad to have people fight monsters in G-strings… It just needs to all make sense within its own narrative and preferably not be gendered (which basically never happens).
Here’s why I’m not the person to ask such questions, in case you missed the note… …BUUUUT it just happens that the very first submission to this blog was a very comprehensive articlemy friend wrote about Sisters of Battle, especially Sisters Repentia.
In short, Warhammer 40k is pretty ridiculous by definition, but regular Sisters have surprisingly decent armor (for the standards of such setting, that is), with the only major fault being the boobplate… With Sisters Repentia though, as much as the idea of redemption by death is interesting, there is no reason why their death-wish outfits need to be the skimpy, pants-lacking, physics-defying… uh, this:
And these aren’t even the most blatant sisters repentia outfits I’ve seen. As of regular sisters of battle, sometimes they are drawn with high heels, but on the other hand, sometimes they have helmets and not a boobplate, so this balances it out.
